Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Zcash cofounder Eli Ben-Sasson renewed his optimistic outlook for the ZEC token, suggesting in a recent X post that a $2,000 price target is a “no-brainer” and projecting a potential climb to $5,000 over the long term. Ben-Sasson’s remarks addressed possible scenarios for ZEC in 2026.

Zcash recent price actionZcash, a privacy-focused cryptocurrency designed to provide anonymous transactions, surged to $1,696 on September 26, reaching its highest point in months after a sustained rally. However, the price has since lost momentum. As of the latest data, ZEC traded at $1,098, reflecting a decline of 10.23% over the past 24 hours. The broader crypto market experienced widespread selling following new inflation data that spurred concerns about potential Federal Reserve interest rate hikes this month.

To reach Ben-Sasson’s $2,000 target, ZEC would need to increase by more than 82% from its current price. The path forward may prove challenging if current market headwinds persist.

Technical levels and market sentimentThe recent pullback pushed Zcash below its daily MA 50, a moving average that had previously supported price increases during August 2026. Regaining this technical level could encourage bullish traders to drive the price higher and test resistance in the $1,300 to $1,400 range, with further upside toward $1,700 and potentially $2,000 if momentum continues.

Zcash needs to reclaim key technical support before bulls can attempt a rally toward $1,700 and $2,000.

Santiment analytics reported that ZEC gained approximately 48% between September 15 and September 26, 2026. However, by October 14, the token had lost nearly all those gains.

During this period, open interest in ZEC peaked at 1.60 million coins. By October 14, open interest had fallen by 2.5% compared to mid-September. Social volume also dropped significantly, with a high of 671 ZEC mentions during the rally, falling to just 50 on October 14, marking the quietest day since September 2. Despite the declining attention and reduced leverage, ZEC rose past $1,650 during the rally.

DateZEC PriceOpen InterestSocial MentionsSep 15, 2026~$1,1461.60 million ZEC–Sep 26, 2026$1,696 (peak)–671Oct 14, 2026~$1,0982.5% below Sep 1550 (quietest since Sep 2)Upgrade and market outlookA mainnet decision on the Zcash NU7 upgrade is expected on October 20, 2026. Despite this upcoming event, social dominance statistics for ZEC are at their lowest since early September, indicating subdued interest from the online community.

Eli Ben-Sasson’s bullish forecast keeps a spotlight on ZEC, though the market awaits further catalyst events and technical confirmation to support a renewed rally.

Mini dictionary: NU7 upgrade, the next major protocol update for Zcash, aims to implement technical improvements to enhance privacy, efficiency, and network functionality. Each upgrade on the Zcash network is designated “Network Upgrade” followed by a sequential number. NU7 is scheduled for a mainnet activation decision in October 2026.

Online metrics show declining social buzz around Zcash, even during rapid price movement, as open interest also recedes since last month’s peak.

People can send shielded Zcash using names such as alice instead of copying long addresses or scanning QR codes, bringing private peer-to-peer payments closer to the experience of payment apps.

HOUSTON, Oct. 15, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Zcash Names opens Early Access today, giving people who reserved names the first opportunity to register them and use names such as alice instead of long Zcash addresses.

A Zcash name makes sending private digital money more like sending money to a username in a payment app. A sender can enter a name in their Zcash wallet instead of copying a long address or scanning a QR code.

Payments use Zcash's shielded system, allowing the name to be shared publicly while keeping the sender, receiver, and amount hidden from public view on the blockchain. 

Zcash Names is intended to close one of the usability gaps between cryptocurrency and payment apps while allowing peer-to-peer payments without a financial intermediary.

Fourteen wallets, explorers, and other apps, including Cake, Edge, Noir, and Zingo, integrated Zcash Names during earlier beta releases. A name can be used across participating apps rather than being tied to one wallet. An SDK is available to support integrations, and an explorer lets people resolve names to addresses and view the history of a name.

Early Access and Registration

Early Access begins October 15, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern for people who reserved a name.

Reservations cost 0.005 ZEC and provide access to the registration queue. Reservations can be made until the queue closes.

Yearly registration starts at $20 for names of six characters or longer and increases for shorter names, up to $10,000 a year for a single-character name. Permanent registration costs three times the yearly price.

Open registration begins on October 30 or after all reserved participants have had an opportunity to register, whichever comes later.

As of publication, 10,802 names had been added to the waitlist since April. Of those, 973 had paid reservations since August 18.

Another 1,564 names are protected from public registration to reduce impersonation and name squatting. That group includes prominent names already registered through the Ethereum Name Service (ENS).

How Zcash Names Works

Zcash does not support general-purpose smart contracts, so Zcash Names uses Zcash transactions to record who controls a name.

When the Zcash Names registrar accepts a registration or update, it records the name's current state on Zcash, including its associated address, expiration, and a link to the previous state. Wallets use those records to determine who currently controls the name. 

The name, the address it resolves to, and the history of registrations, updates, and releases are public. Payments made to a shielded Zcash address can remain shielded.

The registrar processes claims inside a trusted execution environment, a protected computing environment that restricts access to the software and data used in that process.

A Zcash-native naming system was also discussed at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026. During "The Zcash Moment" on the OKX Main Stage on October 7, Balaji Srinivasan, founder of The Network State, said, “The next step will eventually be something like ZNS, which has all those good properties, but then has various levels of selective revelation with viewing keys." Video of the remarks is available at https://x.com/ZcashNames/status/2107811296129515548.

Logos, current waitlist figures, and more information about the design are available at https://www.zcashnames.com/press.

About Zcash Names

Zcash Names is a naming protocol for shielded Zcash addresses. It lets people use human-readable names in place of long addresses when sending Zcash through supported wallets and apps.

It succeeds ZECpages, the directory James Joseph started in 2020, and draws on ZcashMe, which lets users prove control of a Zcash address, something Zcash does not support natively. In 2026, the naming system moved on-chain.

The protocol is developed by James Joseph, Julian Abraham, and Lana Ivina. Zcash Community Grants has funded development of Zcash Names and a Zcash program at Network School.

For more information, visit: zcashnames.com

Media Contact

James Joseph, CEO/Founder

ZcashMe, Inc.

[email protected]

Disclaimer: This sponsored content is provided by the content provider and does not necessarily reflect the views of this media platform or its publisher. The information is shared for general informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency and mining-related activities carry risks, including the potential loss of capital, and readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and seek professional advice where appropriate. Speculate only with funds that you can afford to lose.The media platform and publisher assume no responsibility for any losses or claims arising from reliance on this content. GlobeNewswire does not endorse any content on this page.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided on an “as-is” basis, without warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. The media platform assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented. Any complaints, claims, or copyright concerns related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/fc3afd2a-0899-4e51-8398-6f332ccfd0c0

Zcash

Zcash
Source: Zcash

Uniswap, a leading decentralized exchange (DEX) platform, is seeing a notable rise in stablecoin trading activity. According to the RWA Foundation, Uniswap recorded $91.1 million in stablecoin trading volume over the last 24 hours, positioning itself at the forefront of stablecoin-driven DEX growth within that period.

Surge in Stablecoin Volume on UniswapThe fresh trading data highlights Uniswap’s central role in decentralized finance as traders rely increasingly on stablecoin pools for seamless swaps between cryptocurrencies and dollar-pegged assets. As liquidity providers and traders seek to minimize volatility, stablecoins continue to serve as a backbone for DEX operations.

The reported increase in volume reflects strong participation but does not automatically signal a parallel rise in protocol revenue or in demand for Uniswap’s native token, UNI. Analysts suggest that a full evaluation of the trend requires monitoring trading activity beyond the 24-hour window to establish whether it marks a sustained shift or just a temporary surge.

Uniswap’s platform, which allows permissionless trading of ERC-20 assets, has become a key venue for stablecoin liquidity. This dynamic is particularly notable amid increased liquidity competition among DEXs and rising demand for efficient swaps.

Mini dictionary: RWA Foundation, a research group focused on real-world assets and decentralized finance analytics.

While stablecoin volumes are climbing, the relationship between this trend and UNI price performance remains indirect. Trading metrics such as spot volume, open interest, and funding rate from derivatives trading are also used by market participants to gauge UNI’s prospects.

UNI Price Action Near $6.89 Sparks Technical DebateTechnical analysis by Crypto With Gopal, a cryptocurrency market analyst, points to a triangle breakout pattern in UNI following a period of price consolidation. The token recently broke past descending resistance, briefly retracing to the $6.89 level—an area seen as pivotal by traders watching for signs of sustained bullish momentum.

Should buyers manage to defend the $6.89 mark and push UNI back towards resistance, the conditions for a further breakout could strengthen, giving the token solid ground for the next major move upward.

However, technical signals can be inconclusive without additional confirmation. A confirmed breakout typically requires not only a price move above resistance but also increased trading volume and sustained buying pressure. Falling below support at $6.89 would counter the bullish scenario and weaken the technical outlook.

The $8 to $9 range now serves as the immediate resistance zone. Clearing this level would improve odds of a move toward analyst-proposed targets in the $14 to $15 range. Failure to hold above former resistance could lead to renewed downside risk for the token.

LevelStatusSignificance$6.89SupportKey breakout zone to hold for bullish setup$8 – $9ResistanceImmediate upside hurdle; breakout could open way to higher targets$14 – $15TargetUpper target proposed by analystOutlook: Technical Tests and Market ParticipationIn the short term, UNI’s setup depends on whether it can remain above $6.89 and move toward $8–$9. A successful defense and recovery would back analyst opinions suggesting a potential bullish trend. If the bullish pattern fails and the token drops below support, the technical case for immediate recovery would weaken.

Broader ecosystem activity, as reflected in stablecoin trading volumes, represents positive engagement for Uniswap but is not in itself a sign of guaranteed price appreciation for UNI. Protocol stakeholders continue to track technical signals and real trading data for clues about near-term direction.

Continued support at $6.89, resistance breakthroughs, and ongoing stablecoin volume will remain key technical factors shaping UNI’s momentum in the current environment.

DeFi Development Corp. just made its preferred stock a little more generous. The Nasdaq-listed Solana treasury company is raising the annual dividend rate on its CHAD preferred shares from 13.00% to 14.00%.

What changed for CHAD holders DeFi Development Corp. (Nasdaq: DFDV) announced the increase on October 15, 2026. The new rate applies to its Variable Rate Series C Perpetual Preferred Stock, which trades under the ticker CHAD.

The higher payout kicks in starting November 2, 2026. Based on the $10.00 stated amount per share, annual dividend income rises to $1.40 per share from $1.30.

The math looks even better for early buyers. CHAD’s initial offering priced at $8.00 per share on September 3, 2026, raising approximately $11 million in gross proceeds. Anyone who bought at that price and still holds is now collecting $1.40 a year on an $8.00 outlay, or 17.5% on cost.

The dividends are cumulative, which means any skipped payments pile up and remain owed to shareholders. Payments are made daily when declared by the board.

The board has also authorized a repurchase program for CHAD shares, with a focus on achieving a $10 par value.

How CHAD fits the Solana treasury playbook CHAD is a perpetual, non-convertible preferred stock. Perpetual means there is no maturity date. Non-convertible means holders cannot swap their shares into common stock, so the dividend is the whole point. The instrument is backed by DeFi Development’s SOL treasury, which the company aims to put to work through strategies including staking.

As of mid-October 2026, the company’s holdings reached approximately 2.586 million SOL and equivalents.

CEO Joseph Onorati framed the higher rate as a way to make CHAD more attractive as an income-generating investment. The strategy ties directly to the treasury: proceeds from future CHAD sales are expected to fund further SOL accumulation.

DeFi Development plans to execute as much as $300 million in additional CHAD share issuances. For context, that would be roughly 27 times the gross proceeds from the September debut.

The pitch to common shareholders is SOL-per-share growth. If preferred investors fund new SOL purchases, common holders own a slice of a bigger treasury without the company issuing more common stock to pay for it.

From real estate to digital credit DeFi Development did not start life as a crypto treasury. The company pivoted from a prior real estate platform to a strategy built around holding Solana.

The variable rate structure allows the board to raise or change the payout as conditions shift. This latest move is the first visible use of that lever.

What this means for investors and the treasury model Because the dividends are cumulative, the obligation does not vanish in a bad quarter. The treasury backing CHAD is denominated in a crypto asset that can swing sharply. A falling SOL price would shrink the asset base while the dividend obligation stays fixed in dollar terms. Preferred holders sit ahead of common shareholders, but they are still exposed to the health of the treasury.

For common shareholders, the question is whether the cost of the preferred funding is worth the SOL it buys. If staking yields and SOL appreciation outpace a 14% dividend over time, the structure grows SOL per share.

The things to track from here are straightforward. Watch where CHAD trades relative to its $10.00 stated amount, how quickly the company taps its issuance capacity, and whether the SOL treasury keeps growing beyond 2.586 million.

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

Table of contents

Spout, a Solana-based protocol that lets investors borrow against tokenized US stocks without paying interest, has raised a $2 million strategic round with backing from Draper Dragon, Anchorage Digital, Flow Traders and Solana Labs, among others. We spoke to Marc Ryan, Spout’s co-founder and CEO, about the two-tier credit system he saw in investment banking, how the protocol pays lenders without charging borrowers, and what has to happen before its private beta opens.

You started your career in investment banking. What did you see there that eventually led to Spout?
I worked at HSBC, including on the Arm IPO. What struck me was a two-tier credit system sitting in plain sight.

On one side of the building, we arranged debt for large companies at rates a retail investor would assume were a typo. On the other, an individual holding a perfectly good portfolio of those same companies’ stock pays around 12% to borrow against it. Same underlying asset, same credit logic, completely different price. The only variable is who you are.

The second thing was how much of the work was simply moving information around. Underwriting is largely the business of assembling facts that already exist, verifying them slowly and charging for the delay. A lot of that collapses if the asset and the information about it sit on the same ledger, and anyone can check both instantly.

Spout came out of holding those two observations side by side.

Margin loans have been around for as long as brokerages have. Why has borrowing against stocks stayed so expensive for individual investors?
Because nobody has had a way to attack it.

Margin interest is not a cost being passed through to you. It is a product. The brokerage borrows cheaply, lends to you at a spread and keeps the difference. That spread is one of the most reliable revenue lines in the business, and no competitor can undercut it without giving up the same revenue themselves. It is also not a number most people shop on. You compare commissions and app design, and you discover the margin rate after you have already moved your account.

So the rate does not fall, because falling requires replacing that income with something else, and there was no something else.

Prime brokerage solves exactly this problem for institutions. It generates revenue from the collateral itself rather than from the borrower, which is why a hedge fund’s financing costs look nothing like yours. Running that at individual scale needs a shared ledger and programmable custody, and until recently neither existed.

That is the real unlock, and it is not tokenization for its own sake. It is the ability to produce income from the collateral, so that you no longer have to produce it from the borrower.

If the borrower pays no interest, where does the lender’s return come from, and what makes it go up or down?
It comes from selling optionality on the collateral, not from the borrower.

When you post stock with us, it would otherwise sit there doing nothing, exactly as it does in a brokerage account. We write covered calls against it, far out of the money, on a weekly cycle. The premium from those calls is what pays the lender. The borrower keeps the stock’s downside and its upside up to the strike, and pays no interest.

The lender has no directional exposure to the stock. They own a stream of option premium, which is why the return is largely indifferent to whether the market goes up or down.

What moves it is the gap between implied and realized volatility. Options on large, liquid US stocks persistently price in more movement than actually occurs. That gap is where the premium comes from, and it exists because of structural demand, not because anyone is making a mistake. Pension funds and institutional allocators buy protection on blue chip holdings as a matter of policy, not because they have a view. Retail investors buy upside calls on a handful of names with enormous enthusiasm. Both are price-insensitive buyers, and someone has to be on the other side of them. When that gap is wide, the lender earns more. When it compresses, the lender earns less. The lender side is split into a senior and a junior tranche.

Selling volatility on blue chip stocks isn’t a new idea. What is different about the way Spout does it?
It is an old trade. Hedge funds and structured product desks have run it for decades, so the novel part is not the premium. The problem has always been the tail. If you sell calls and the stock rips through the strike, you eat it. That is why systematic volatility selling has the reputation it does, and why institutions are wary of the trade even when the expected value is good. They want the premium. They do not want the tail that comes attached to it.

What we do differently is separate the two and give each to the party that wants it. Because the vault has two sides, rather than one fund doing both, the return and the risk can go to different people. The lender receives the premium and carries no directional exposure to the stock. The borrower carries the tail, which costs them the upside above the strike. They are entirely comfortable with that, because they are long the asset anyway and they get a 0% loan in exchange.

Put another way, every borrower on Spout is running a covered call. It is the most widely used options strategy among retail investors, and millions of people already do it voluntarily. The only difference is what they are paid in. Normally you write a covered call and receive cash. Here you write one and receive free financing.

Two parties with opposite appetites: one wants yield without direction, the other wants leverage and already owns the risk. Until you have a permissionless two-sided market, those two have no way to trade with each other. That is what the vault is for, and that is the thing that did not exist before.

Why does this need tokenized stocks? What can you do onchain that a traditional brokerage account can’t?
Almost everything a tokenized stock does today is worse than a brokerage account. You can buy the same share from a broker for free, with better execution and real settlement. Any product whose entire proposition is “the same stock, but onchain” is asking people to accept something worse in exchange for novelty. That is why most of this category has not gone anywhere.

As far as I can tell, the prime brokerage-style borrowing we have built is the first thing you can do with a tokenized equity that beats the offchain version rather than imitating it.

Strictly speaking, the strategy does not require tokenized stocks. What it requires is that the vaults live onchain, because that is what lets liquidity arrive permissionlessly. You need a two-sided market where anyone can be the lender and nobody has to be approved to become one. A brokerage cannot do that. It has to know and onboard every participant.

But it works best with tokenized equities, because they are programmable and borrowing is only one layer of what you can stack on them. Someone can post tokenized stock here, borrow stablecoins at 0% and put those stablecoins to work somewhere else onchain the same afternoon. Try that with shares at a broker. The asset there is inert by design.

Which tokenized equities will borrowers be able to use, and how do you decide which assets to support?
Eleven at launch, deliberately. They span large cap tech, AI, crypto-linked ETFs, pharmaceuticals, energy, gold and financials.

We wanted the initial launch to be targeted. It is also important to note that the volatility gap only behaves predictably in large, liquid, heavily traded names, where there is a deep options market and constant institutional hedging flow. Move down the market cap curve and the options thin out, spreads widen and the gap becomes erratic. You can still write the calls. You just cannot promise anyone a consistent return from doing it. So we could probably support most of the top 200 stocks, but not more than that for now.

The round brings together venture funds, a market maker, a digital asset bank, among others. What do these backers bring beyond capital?
Each of them answers a question we could not answer on our own.

Draper Dragon is the Asia question. We expect Asia to be a large share of our eventual user base, and their entire practice is bridging US technology into Asian markets.

Anchorage Digital is the custody question. They are the first federally chartered digital asset bank in the United States. If you want institutions anywhere near this, custody is the first thing they ask about and the first thing that disqualifies you.

Flow Traders is the market structure question. We write options against real collateral on a weekly cycle, which makes execution quality not a detail but the product itself. Having one of the world’s largest market makers look closely at how we do that is worth more than the check.

We did not take money from anyone whose only contribution was money.

Your angels include Solana Labs co-founders Anatoly Yakovenko and Raj Gokal, and former CFTC chairman Chris Giancarlo. How did those relationships come about?
Both came from the same habit: I talk to a lot of people, and I read what they write.

I had read Chris Giancarlo’s work long before I contacted him. He was writing years ago about financial instruments moving onchain, at a point when most of the industry was busy launching another L2 nobody needed. He was describing what we are building before there was anywhere to build it. He also understands the regulatory terrain from the inside, which matters enormously in this category. I sent him a cold message, and he took the meeting.

With Toly and Raj, we knew we wanted to build on Solana, so we applied to the Solana Incubator and got in. That put us in rooms with people across Solana Labs and the Solana Foundation over a sustained period. What we are building lines up closely with what they have said publicly about what Solana is for: real financial activity at a cost that makes it sensible to do onchain. The relationship grew out of the work rather than out of a pitch.

Spout isn’t on mainnet yet. What has the devnet beta taught you so far, and what needs to happen before the private beta opens?
The most useful thing it has told us is who actually shows up, and there are two distinct people.

The first wants exposure to a stock but also wants their capital to stay liquid. They do not want to choose between owning the position and having money to deploy. They post the stock, take the stablecoins and go do something else with them.

The second is a long-term holder who wants leverage, and for that person the interest rate is the entire decision. Over a few weeks, a 12% margin rate is an annoyance. Over three years, it compounds into a serious share of the return. That person is not really shopping for a loan. They are shopping for more exposure, and the cost of carry determines how much of it they can hold. For them, 0% is not a better deal. It is a different product.

Before the private beta opens, the gate is audited. The protocol holds other people’s equity collateral and writes options against it. There is no version of this where we open it up before the contracts have been through external review.

You describe the longer-term plan as a credit layer that issuers, exchanges and wallets can plug into. What would that look like for a partner in practice?
A white-label margin product that drops into someone else’s interface. An exchange, a wallet or a tokenized equity issuer can offer their own users 0% borrowing against their holdings without building any of the machinery underneath it. The API is built. An SDK and an MCP server are in progress.

The way I think about it, we are a layer, not a destination. The useful property of building this onchain is that other people can build on top of you without asking permission. There are financial instruments and funds that could be constructed on top of a 0% borrow that do not exist yet, and then instruments on top of those. We do not need to imagine all of them. We need to make the layer underneath dependable enough that other people bother.

Spout is not yet live on mainnet. Its beta runs on Solana devnet, and the company says the private beta will open after its smart contracts have completed external audits.

Injective is making a numbers driven pitch to crypto investors. Its revenue to fully dilution valuation (FDV) ratio now leads the major blockchain platforms shown in the year 2026 year to date comparison, putting INJ ahead of better known rivals on this particular metric. The catch? A strong ratio can support a valuation argument, but it doesn’t guarantee a rising token price.

Injective Takes the Lead on Revenue to FDVThe chart places Injective at a revenue to FDV ratio of 0.95, ahead of Solana at 0.83 and Arbitrum 0.78. That’s more than 20% above Arbitrum and ahead of Solana.

The gap looks even wider against Ethereum, at 0.11, and both Sui and Avalanche, each shown at 0.08. Injective’s ratio is over eight times Ethereum’s and more than ten times those two networks’ figures.

Those numbers make Injective stand out in this comparison. Revenue relative to fully diluted valuation offers one way to assess how much onchain revenue a network generates against its potential token valuation. Still, one metric can’t tell the whole story about risk or future performance.

Injective now leads all major blockchains by revenue to fully diluted market cap.

→ Ahead of Solana
→ Over 20% ahead of Arbitrum
→ Over 8x Ethereum
→ Over 10x Sui and Avalanche

Revenue / FDV is one of the clearest measures of whether a network’s valuation is backed by real… pic.twitter.com/MLLzOCzqJP

— Injective 🥷 (@injective) October 15, 2026 The Buyback Mechanism Gives INJ Another AngleInjective’s pitch goes beyond the chart. Onchain revenue flows into the INJ Community BuyBack, which permanently removes INJ tokens from circulation every month.

That creates a potential supply reduction mechanism tied to network revenue. But the effect on market price depends on more than token removals alone, the figures provided don’t quantify the buyback’s price impact.

Future Growth Still Has to DeliverInjective expects revenue to accelerate as it onboards new tokenization initiatives and launches additional products in the coming months. If that happens, the revenue story could strengthen.

For now, the Injective revenue to FDV lead is a compelling snapshot, not a guarantee. Investors will need to watch whether new products generate sustained revenue and whether the buyback translates into meaningful token value over time.

Story Ends Here

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

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

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

Read the Next News

Back to top button

The average US spot Bitcoin ETF holder spent most of 2026 underwater. According to ARK Invest, that is no longer the case.

The firm reports that holders’ investment gained 43% in a single quarter, a move it says indicates the market may be turning positive.

From deep outflows to a record week Rewind to mid-July. Cumulative net outflows from US spot Bitcoin ETFs had reached approximately $5.8 billion, driven by Bitcoin’s choppy price action.

Then the price turned. Bitcoin climbed from about $59,500 in early July to around $85,000 by early October, a gain of roughly 42.9%.

That rally mattered for one specific number: the average holder’s cost basis. Estimates put it between $81,722 and $82,000.

Cost basis is simply the average price investors paid to get in. Once Bitcoin traded above that range, the typical ETF buyer was sitting on a profit for the first time since January.

The flows followed the price. In the week ending September 25, 2026, US spot Bitcoin ETFs took in net inflows of approximately $2.4 billion.

That was the biggest weekly haul since October 2025. It also flipped total 2026 flows back into positive territory, with estimates ranging from $800 million to $934 million.

Who led the charge The single biggest day came on September 21, when inflows hit nearly $999 million.

BlackRock’s IBIT led the category. ARK’s own product, the ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF, ticker ARKB, pulled in roughly $289 to $295 million during its peak week in September.

Across the funds, ETF holdings grew by approximately 88,000 BTC since July, lining up closely with the price surge.

What this means for investors The most important figure here may be the cost basis range itself. With Bitcoin around $85,000 and the average entry near $81,722 to $82,000, the typical holder’s cushion is only a few thousand dollars.

ARK’s framing describes the market as one that may be turning positive. Note the hedge: may.

The flow data does point to renewed institutional engagement. A $2.4 billion week and a near-$999 million day are not the behavior of a crowd that has given up on the asset.

The approximately $5.8 billion outflow by mid-July happened because holders reacted to losses, and the reversal happened because they reacted to gains.

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

Jito [JTO] continued its decline, dropping roughly 14% over the past day and 17% over the past seven days.

The slide coincided with falling Total Value Locked (TVL), lower Fees, and net outflows from the perpetual market. Together, these signals suggested weakening participation, although Spot Exchange Outflows offered a possible counterpoint.

Why did Jito’s TVL fall $193 million?
On-chain activity showed signs of weakness, with Jito’s TVL shrinking notably.

TVL measures the value of assets deposited in a protocol. However, changes can reflect both withdrawals and movements in deposited assets’ prices.

Source: DeFiLlama
Jito’s TVL fell by over $193 million between the 5th of October and press time, reaching $1.076 billion. That decline suggested a smaller capital base, although TVL alone could not establish whether users had withdrawn funds.

Fees weakened too. According to DeFiLlama, Fees fell from $532,600 to roughly $220,729 across the period, a 58.56% decline.

Lower Fees were consistent with reduced revenue-generating activity, adding to the pressure surrounding Jito’s performance.

What are JTO’s derivatives traders signaling?
The weakness extended into the perpetual market, where Netflows remained negative.

Over the past 24 hours, JTO recorded roughly $3.8 million in net outflows. Gross outflows reached about $30.59 million. These figures pointed to capital leaving the market, although they did not independently establish which positions traders closed.

Source: CoinGlass
Meanwhile, the Funding Rate fell to -0.0020%, signaling bearish pressure in perpetual pricing. A negative Funding Rate generally means shorts pay longs. It does not establish how total capital is divided between them.

JTO’s reported $46.93 million in Open Interest therefore represented outstanding contracts, rather than evidence of more capital allocated to shorts.

Could JTO withdrawals offer some relief?
Spot Exchange Netflows offered a different signal, reaching roughly -$635,000 over the past 24 hours.

Negative Exchange Netflows meant more JTO left tracked exchanges than entered them. Those withdrawals could reflect accumulation or transfers into custody.

Traders sometimes withdraw tokens when preparing to hold them longer. Still, exchange withdrawals alone could not confirm fresh buying.

Source: CoinGlass
Cumulative Netflows also remained negative across the 3-day, 5-day, and 7-day periods, showing that withdrawals persisted. That offered a possible bullish counterpoint. Whether those withdrawals translate into price support remains an open question.

Final Summary

Jito’s TVL fell over $193 million, while Fees dropped 58.56%, signaling weaker protocol activity.
JTO’s persistent Spot Exchange Outflows suggested possible accumulation, although fresh buying remained unconfirmed.

Tokenized exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and indices have seen remarkable growth in 2026, with the sector’s market value more than tripling since the start of the year. Data from the blockchain analytics platform Token Terminal shows that the combined market capitalization of tokenized ETFs and indices rose from $219.2 million on January 1 to $686.5 million, an increase of 213% year to date.

Surge in Holder NumbersThe number of wallets holding tokenized ETFs has grown at an even faster pace. Since the beginning of 2026, the total has climbed from approximately 17,500 wallets to 897,700, increasing more than 51-fold. By comparison, the holder base for individual tokenized stocks grew by 26.6 times across the same span. This trend highlights that tokenized ETFs are now attracting holders at more than twice the rate seen for single stock tokens.

Much of this growth accelerated over the past two months. Holder counts saw steady increases through the first seven months of 2026, followed by a sharp rise in late August after Binance introduced its bStocks tokenized products, which significantly changed activity patterns in the sector.

Holder and Capital DistributionAnalysis of user demographics and funding shows a bifurcation in the market. Binance, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, leads in holder numbers with its bStocks platform, reaching 448,400 holders and accounting for half of all tokenized ETF users tracked by Token Terminal. However, Binance’s share of the market capitalization stands at $160.1 million or 23.3%, signaling that individual holders, primarily retail, tend to invest smaller amounts.

Robinhood’s tokenized ETF platform demonstrates a similar trend, with 13.1% of holders making up just 5.4% of overall sector market cap. These statistics suggest growing adoption by retail investors through familiar trading apps.

In contrast, Ondo Finance, a decentralized finance platform, holds a smaller share of wallet count at 20.3% but commands the largest portion of market capitalization, with $325.7 million or 47.4% of the total. This distribution points to fewer, likely institutional participants with much larger individual stakes.

Mini dictionary: Ondo Finance is a decentralized finance (DeFi) platform that enables users to access tokenized securities and investment products, often bridging traditional and blockchain finance.

PlatformHolder Share (%)Market Cap Share (%)Market Cap ($M)Binance bStocks50.023.3160.1Robinhood13.15.4N/AOndo Finance20.347.4325.7Top Tokenized ETF ProductsBinance’s product based on the Nasdaq-100, QQQb, has emerged as the largest tokenized ETF by market cap and user count. QQQb now holds $67.6 million in capitalization and serves 314,500 holders, representing roughly 35% of all tokenized ETF holders. The SPYx tokenized S&P 500 tracker follows at $62.2 million, with Ondo’s IVVon, another S&P 500-linked token, trailing closely at $61.5 million.

Broad U.S. index trackers now dominate tokenized ETF demand; S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100-linked products in the top 10 capture nearly $330 million, about half of the sector’s overall value.

Many of these products track identical underlying indices but are launched by different issuers across multiple blockchains. This has led to demand being distributed among similar or near-identical tokens depending on the network and provider.

Ethereum Leads Among BlockchainsEthereum remains the leading blockchain for tokenized ETFs, hosting $303 million in value and representing 44.1% of the market. BNB Chain, often used for Binance’s products, ranks second with $192.1 million and 28% of sector share. Solana’s share stands at 13.3%, while Arbitrum One, Robinhood Chain, and X Layer each account for less than 5%.

The increase in holder numbers since August has outpaced the growth in capital, highlighting a clear divide between platforms like Binance, which draw numerous users making smaller investments, and Ondo, which aggregates larger capital often from institutional sources.

Hyperliquid founder Jeff Yan outlined a regulatory approach that would shield his fast-growing cryptocurrency trading platform from direct US exchange oversight, as American authorities consider how to bring offshore venues into the domestic financial system.

In an interview with Bloomberg’s Odd Lots podcast, Yan argued that regulatory obligations should fall on financial firms operating markets on Hyperliquid’s blockchain rather than the network itself. The distinction would allow the company to expand its reach into Wall Street without assuming the full compliance burden of a traditional exchange.

Traders and market watchers around the world started talking about a crypto platform called Hyperliquid earlier this year, when speculators used markets built on top of it to trade crude oil after war broke out in Iran. What Hyperliquid allowed for was a 24/7 market on the blockchain. Then in August, President Trump said the CFTC was working on bringing “Hyperliquid into the United States in a fully compliant and legal fashion.” Hyperliquid currently operates outside the US, but that hasn’t stopped it from growing prodigiously in the last year. Jeff Yan, CEO and co-founder of Hyperliquid Labs, joins us today to explain how exactly the platform — works: He walks us through the protocol he and his co-founders built, the ecology of actors and assets that are tied to Hyperliquid (like the platform’s cryptocurrency HYPE), how perps are bought and sold on the platform, he explains what a blockchain oracle is, and he discusses what has to happen for Hyperliquid to start operating in the US.
Hyperliquid is best known for offering perpetual futures, which allow traders to make leveraged bets on cryptocurrencies and other assets without the expiry dates of conventional futures. Yan, 31, is the co-founder of Singapore-based Hyperliquid Labs, which is the main developer of the trading venue’s underlying blockchain. Hyperliquid remains off-limits to US customers, although Kraken parent Payward has announced plans to offer American investors derivatives using its technology through a regulated exchange.

Read: The Little-Known Crypto Powerhouse Behind Billions in Trading

Yan compared the proposed division of regulatory responsibilities to internet infrastructure, which supports financial services without itself being subject to the same oversight. His broader ambition is to provide the underlying trading technology for established Wall Street institutions rather than displace them, drawing a parallel with Amazon Web Services and its role in corporate computing.

Jeff Yan, chief executive officer of Hyperliquid Labs, during the Token2049 conference in Singapore, on Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026. — Photographer: Ore Huiying/Bloomberg
“The regulation sits at the layer where there are controls, and indeed the deployers are the ones that exercise these controls,” Yan said. “And so it’s a very natural way for the protocol to continue playing its role as a networking liquidity infrastructure layer.”

Hyperliquid, once a little-known startup, is gaining mainstream popularity especially after President Donald Trump said in August that US regulators are working to bring the exchange into the country. Yan noted that while US regulators are conservative, they are willing to move fast with new technologies.

Regulators “want to embrace innovation, but there’s a very heavy responsibility with that because there’s an existing system that by and large works well, serves many people, and has protections built in place,” said Yan. “So I think there’s very naturally this gap of wanting to understand, ‘is this technology truly compatible with our core principles?’”

The question of how to regulate Hyperliquid has also drawn scrutiny from established exchange operators, including CME Group Inc. and Intercontinental Exchange Inc., Bloomberg has previously reported. In the Odd Lots interview, Yan pushed back on calling traditional finance players as “legacy,” as he believes that Wall Street institutions will also want to come and build on Hyperliquid eventually.

Read: The $500 Billion Experiment to Build 24/7 Markets on Blockchain

“We’re not trying to displace anything,” Yan said. “In fact, I think the technology can benefit everyone who currently operates markets in a more traditional setting. And whether these markets are perpetual markets or settled dated futures is irrelevant because ultimately what you really need is an order book, clearing system and global distribution, concentration of liquidity.”

On Hyperliquid’s ambition to be the“house of all finance,” Yan said his team is “very serious” about it.

“Ultimately, the thinking is that the financial system is there to better serve as many people on this planet as possible,” said Yan. “I think many layers are moved, but this sort of permissionless employment system ultimately is accomplishing that goal.”

Before he moved to Singapore to start Hyperliquid Labs, Yan lived in Puerto Rico and ran a crypto fund called Chameleon Trading. Yan also worked at Hudson River Trading after he graduated from Harvard University.

A Hyperliquid perpetual linked to Anthropic’s implied value traded after the company’s investor briefing this week, with a reported $1.95 trillion mark and almost $21 million of turnover in the previous 24 hours. The contract is a wager settled between traders. It grants no Anthropic stock, no claim on company earnings and no ability to redeem for a share. Its most important unresolved question is how a market sets a reference price for a company whose shares do not trade publicly.

Summary

MarketWatch reported an Anthropic linked Hyperliquid contract near $1.95 trillion on October 15.
Its reported 24 hour trading turnover was almost $21 million at that snapshot.
The io:ANTH market is a builder deployed perpetual operated by Entropy, not an Anthropic share.
HIP 3 puts oracle selection and market parameters in the hands of the deployer.
A $1 move in io:ANTH’s quoted price represents $1 billion of implied company value.

MarketWatch’s October 15 observation said the indicative contract fell 4%. The name of a private company on a trading screen can make the instrument look like a share. In Entropy’s io:ANTH market it is a cash settled derivative built under Hyperliquid’s HIP 3 framework. Anthropic neither issued it nor received proceeds when one trader bought from another.

Prior coverage of Hyperliquid’s pre IPO markets explained the rise of synthetic company exposure. Today’s hook is sharper because Anthropic has been discussing its financials with prospective investors while the derivative generates a price minute by minute. The way that price is produced deserves more attention than whether its last tick was green or red.

A market cap quote is not a share price
The io:ANTH instrument is quoted in units of implied billions of dollars of Anthropic value, according to FalconX’s examination of its contract design. A displayed price around 1,950 corresponds to an indicative $1.95 trillion company valuation. A move from 1,950 to 1,900 is a 50 point fall, or $50 billion in the convention used by this market. It does not mean $50 billion left Anthropic or that investors sold $50 billion of its shares.

MarketWatch’s nearly $21 million is gross notional trading turnover in a day, not the amount of equity exchanged. Dividing $1.95 trillion by $21 million gives roughly 92,900. The ratio is a deliberately simple scale comparison, not a liquidity metric: the valuation mark is roughly 93,000 times the reported daily derivative turnover. It shows why a small market can display a very large implied company value without buying anything close to that value in underlying shares.

The market does not know an authoritative public share count and a continuously traded share price from which to calculate an ordinary equity market capitalization. Its quotation convention bypasses that problem by expressing the view as a valuation number directly. Another venue could quote an expected share price using its own assumed capitalization and share count. The two numbers are not directly comparable until those assumptions are reconciled.

An Anthropic employee or early investor holding actual shares would have a different legal position. Private share transfers can require approval and may be subject to restrictions. A perp trader has an exchange position with collateral, funding and liquidation terms. It can move in the same direction as an eventual IPO price, but it is not a substitute for a shareholder vote, distributions or a legally enforceable claim on Anthropic’s assets.

Entropy defines the market that appears on Hyperliquid
Hyperliquid’s HIP 3 documentation says an independent deployer sets a market’s definition, oracle and specifications and operates its oracle prices, leverage limits and settlement. The base platform supplies an order book and margin infrastructure. For io:ANTH, Entropy is the deployer. Calling it simply a Hyperliquid listing can hide the company that chooses the key contract terms.

The documentation says a deployer must maintain 500,000 HYPE staked and can be slashed through validator voting for certain irregular actions affecting protocol operation. That mechanism is relevant to malicious or disruptive deployer behavior; it is not a guarantee that the Anthropic valuation is accurate. Hyperliquid’s own guidance cautions that an oracle is most suitable when there is a well defined external price hard to manipulate. A private company’s value is precisely the case where external observations are sparse.

Entropy’s interface terms describe perpetual futures as synthetic and warn that oracle feeds can be stale or manipulated, that funding changes, and that a leveraged position can lose its collateral through liquidation. The terms do not promise best execution. Such provisions should be read as actual product conditions, not dismissed as generic crypto boilerplate when the underlying company has no public stock price.

The operator can run a market before an IPO because buyers and sellers can take opposing positions in a collateralized contract. No Anthropic employee needs to sell a share into the venue. The system only has to keep those positions margined and define how gains, losses and a possible final settlement are calculated. The hard part is choosing a credible price path when no public underlying trade resolves the disagreement.

BREAKING: Anthropic picks Nasdaq for IPO at a potential $2T valuation

The move would put Anthropic above SpaceX’s reported $1.75T valuation, as the AI company heads toward a major public debut amid renewed debate over AI safety and extinction risks. pic.twitter.com/Oio2oho0Yh

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 13, 2026

The oracle has to use the market it helps govern
The FalconX analysis describes Entropy’s pre IPO oracle as a blend of external private market information and the contract’s own order book. The weight given to the local market depends on executable two sided depth near the midprice, while an external component remains. Private transactions and funding round marks can be intermittent, and their economic rights may differ from those of ordinary common shares.

This creates a feedback problem. A deep order book can be a useful price discovery venue, but if the oracle starts to rely more on that book, its own participants have a greater role in the reference used for funding and margin. Liquidity around the midprice must be executable, not just displayed orders that vanish before a trade. The deployer’s methodology, parameter updates and market data matter more than a one day percentage move.

The Hyperliquid developer rules describe oracle submissions and the mark calculation, including order book inputs and limits on update frequency and abrupt mark changes. The platform’s ordinary BTC spot oracle, described elsewhere in its docs, is not automatically the oracle for an independently deployed private company perp. Confusing those designs would give io:ANTH a false aura of external exchange price verification.

If a thin book pushes the displayed trade far from a private market reference, funding payments and risk rules can pull positions toward the contract’s mark over time. They cannot prove the mark equals what a buyer would pay for actual private shares. A prospective IPO may eventually supply a public trading reference, but there can be important differences between the contract’s settlement formula and the first listed share price.

Anthropic’s briefing supplies news, not a settlement price
Reuters reported on the investor presentation, citing people who attended. The report said Anthropic disclosed third quarter revenue growth of 45% from the preceding quarter. Prospective investors can use such figures in negotiations, and perp traders can react to the report. A presentation does not produce a continuous stock price or an obligation for Anthropic to honor the perpetual market’s valuation.

Different interpretations of the financials can justify very different implied company values. Revenue is not profit; quarterly growth does not automatically continue for years; capital spending, competition and share terms matter. A private round may give investors preferences that ordinary shares or a synthetic perp do not have. A headline valuation can be a negotiation outcome for a particular security class, not a universally executable price for all company ownership.

Markets can sometimes anticipate a public valuation. Traders who follow the company closely may aggregate information faster than a static funding round mark. FalconX argues that pre IPO derivatives can contribute to price discovery around a listing. The opposing case is serious: a liquid, competitive book can be more current than a months old private transaction. Its strength depends on depth, independent participants and how closely the eventual settlement mechanism is tied to a real public market.

The October 15 turnover is evidence of trading interest, not proof of pricing accuracy. A market can trade frequently at a price that later looks wrong. Some participants may be hedging exposure elsewhere, some expressing a directional view, and others trading funding or volatility. Public notional turnover does not reveal their identities or whether a single position is being repeatedly opened and closed.

Earlier Anthropic markets make the distinction important
Crypto.news’s report on the Ventuals team’s move noted that a previous Hyperliquid based Anthropic and OpenAI market experiment had been shut down. The current io:ANTH contract is operated by Entropy under its own specifications. The existence of one market in the past does not preserve its quotes, open interest or settlement terms in a later deployer’s product.

The HIP 3 product explainer explains that outside teams can create perps. Such openness expands the range of tradable exposures, but means a user must identify which team deployed the particular market. Different Anthropic contracts on different platforms may use a different unit, oracle, leverage cap or resolution rule while sharing a company name.

An investor buying a tokenized private share through a regulated special purpose structure would have yet another claim: potentially a contractual interest in an entity holding shares, with custody and transfer restrictions. That is not what io:ANTH represents. The phrase tokenized Anthropic can blur equity backed exposure and a cash settled forecast. Product documents, not the ticker, determine what the holder owns.

If Anthropic does list, a perp may transition toward a listed market reference or settle under its rules. The timing, share class, first trading session and final reference could all matter. No October 15 MarketWatch price is a promise that future public investors will pay the same valuation. The operator’s current specifications and any later notices should be checked before claiming a one to one conversion.

Leverage turns a small valuation move into a large account move
A trader posts collateral for exposure larger than the cash committed. If a position has three times exposure, a 5% adverse move in its reference price corresponds to about 15% of initial collateral before funding, fees and maintenance margin. Liquidation can arrive before an eventual recovery or a future IPO clarifies the company’s value. That example uses simple arithmetic, not the live terms of a particular user’s position.

Funding payments can accumulate even if the indicative company value does not change. Long and short traders exchange payments under a formula designed to keep a perpetual market aligned with its reference. A thin or uncertain external anchor can alter that relationship. The trade is therefore about the path of the market, not only the final belief about Anthropic’s eventual public valuation.

A sharp news event can strain a book with relatively modest executable depth. A stop or liquidation is governed by the mark and margin system, and the price at which a trader can exit depends on actual bids and offers. Turnover of $21 million over a day says nothing precise about the amount available within 1% of the current price for a large order. Order book depth and slippage should accompany any claim that the market is a reliable valuation signal.

Earlier reporting on a SK Hynix perp dislocation illustrates how a synthetic company market can produce contentious marks and liquidations. It concerns a different asset and operator. It is relevant as a mechanical warning, not evidence that the same error occurred in io:ANTH today. No incident is showed by the October 15 decline alone.

What the price can and cannot tell an IPO investor
The $1.95 trillion mark reports a marginal price within Entropy’s Anthropic contract at a particular time. It is an observable expression of the traders participating there. It cannot show Anthropic’s issued share count, its enterprise value after debt and cash, the terms of a future offering or the price at which actual shareholders can sell. A valuation may be a useful signal without becoming an independent appraisal.

A better comparison would put dated private funding or tender terms, any IPO filing and the perp’s implied value side by side, adjusting for share rights and timing. If the gap persists after a public share begins trading under a reliable oracle, the contract’s basis and funding will explain whether convergence occurred. Until then, a large nominal mark attached to relatively small turnover should be described as this market’s indication, not the company’s settled worth.

The named operator matters in any dispute. Hyperliquid provides settlement infrastructure, Entropy sets the market specific inputs, and traders supply bids, asks and collateral. Anthropic is the subject of the wager but is not a counterparty. A holder seeking a correction to an oracle or clarification of settlement would need the deployer’s published process, not Anthropic investor relations.

The $21 million turnover does not fund the company
Consider two traders exchanging a contract with $10,000 of notional exposure. The same position can be bought and sold repeatedly, adding to volume on every execution, without a share moving or Anthropic receiving any cash. Gross 24 hour notional is therefore a measure of trading activity, not capital invested in the underlying company. Open interest counts positions that remain outstanding; executable order book depth indicates what can trade near the mark now. Each metric answers a different question.

The implied market value is especially easy to misread because Entropy’s quote compresses billions of dollars into a single index point. A 1% move near $1.95 trillion corresponds to roughly $19.5 billion in the quotation convention. If only millions of dollars of derivative notional changed hands, the market has repriced a reference, not transferred $19.5 billion between buyers and sellers. Traders’ actual gains and losses depend on their exposure size, entry price, funding and fees.

Nor is the mark an offer to acquire Anthropic in full. A negotiated acquisition would involve control, liabilities, approvals and shareholders with distinct rights. A funding round prices a specific security with its own preferences. The perp expresses the marginal balance of buyers and sellers in one synthetic instrument. Comparing those values may be interesting, but treating them as interchangeable prices erases the terms each one measures.

A reader seeing two different Anthropic valuations in the same week should ask whether they refer to a private funding round, an IPO target, a derivative market cap unit or an enterprise value calculation. A headline number can be correct within its convention while being wrong as a statement that the company has been sold. Precise attribution protects the distinction.

An oracle dispute would reach the deployer first
Crypto.news coverage of HIP 3 access controls describes how deployers can set additional conditions for their markets. The HIP 3 rules put the price input and market operation with Entropy. Hyperliquid validators apply protocol rules and can vote on slashing for irregular behavior affecting the system, but its documentation says the system should not intervene in every subjective disagreement about an oracle. A trader convinced that a private valuation input is too high does not automatically have a protocol level remedy. The trader may simply take the other side in the market, subject to margin and liquidity.

The external component of Entropy’s blend is hard for outsiders to reproduce if it draws on private deal indications and market making quotes. The local order book is more visible, yet displayed depth can change quickly. An audit of a sharp mark move would need the dated input prices, the depth calculation, parameter settings and the deployer’s signed oracle updates. Public onchain actions can show what the deployer submitted; they cannot by themselves prove the undisclosed private market data were representative.

One concern is circularity: a derivative mark influences funding and liquidation, while the same derivative book partly informs that mark. The stronger counterargument is that a live book with meaningful two sided depth can contain fresher information than a stale private funding round. Entropy’s weighting design aims to let the market speak more when that depth exists. Whether it succeeds is observable around independent news and, eventually, a public listing reference.

A change to the upper or lower valuation bounds could matter even when no company news occurs. FalconX described operator discretion over some parameters and a scheduled resolution if the company remains private. A holder should verify the current contract specification, not assume a screenshot from August still governs an October position. Any material change should be dated against open interest and communicated before readers are asked to treat a price series as continuous.

A public listing might not settle every disagreement
A conventional share price becomes observable when Anthropic lists, but a derivative tied to market capitalization still needs a share count and rules for which shares and session count. IPO shares could trade differently from restricted pre IPO holdings. A first day print may be volatile or thin compared with a later closing average. The contract’s documentation, not a generic definition of an IPO, determines whether it transitions to a public oracle, closes positions or continues with adjusted terms.

If Anthropic delays a listing, the synthetic market may remain active while external evidence stays sparse. FalconX described a scheduled end and cash settlement path for Entropy’s pre IPO contracts. A long horizon exposes traders to funding and operator decisions before any company event. The final formula could rely on a trailing average of the contract’s own mark, which would be a settlement to the market’s internal history rather than to a verified sale of shares.

This explains why a hedge with io:ANTH is imperfect for an actual private shareholder. The shareholder’s economic interest can change with the terms of its shares, dilution, transfer restrictions and an eventual public conversion. The perp’s reference can diverge, and its collateral can be liquidated before that shareholder can sell. A trader can still use it to express a view on value, but the basis risk remains even if the headline valuation looks similar.

The decisive evidence arrives when a public filing details share count, financials and offer terms, then when shares trade with enough depth to anchor a reference. Until that sequence, the market supplies a price for its contract. It does not supply a title deed for a piece of Anthropic.

Today’s valuation has more than one denominator
Reuters’s report on Anthropic’s investor briefing gives a financial event that actual IPO buyers may weigh. A derivative market can react to it immediately while investors in a future offering negotiate access, allocation and share terms. The same revenue headline might raise expectations of growth and concern about spending on computing at once. Without detailed costs and the final capital structure, a price to revenue multiple inferred from the $1.95 trillion mark is at best an illustration.

The accounting unit also matters. Entropy quotes a company value convention directly, while a conventional stock market price multiplies a share price by a disclosed diluted share count. A new issue in an IPO increases the number of shares and brings cash into the company. Employee options and other convertibles can add dilution. A pre IPO synthetic mark can be close to a quoted IPO target yet differ materially from a properly diluted public equity value when the documents arrive.

A public filing may reveal classes with different voting or economic rights, commitments to investors or a reserve of shares for employees. Private holders can face lockups after a listing. A perp trader’s position has none of those rights or restrictions in the same form; it has its own collateral and funding rules. Explaining those differences is not a claim that the market is useless. It locates what the market is pricing and what a reader cannot infer from it.

The reported four percent fall on October 15 is not a standalone referendum on the briefing. It coincides with public reporting and wider market conditions, while the derivative’s own funding and order flow can move its mark. A causal claim would need a time series comparing the news release, quotes across venues and changes in depth. The MarketWatch snapshot alone provides the price change and turnover, not who sold or why.

Distinguishing risk from a bad prediction
A trader could accurately anticipate Anthropic’s eventual IPO valuation and still lose money on a leveraged pre IPO perp. A temporary drawdown can liquidate the account. Funding can drain collateral while the prediction takes months to play out. A contract may resolve under a trailing average before the desired company event or change parameters under its published governance. Accuracy about the company is therefore insufficient; the timing and contract path matter.

The reverse is possible. A trader might profit from buying an underpriced contract and selling it weeks later even if Anthropic ultimately lists below the earlier mark. The profit would be a transfer from another derivative participant, not evidence that the initial price correctly described the private company’s long term worth. A functioning speculative market can have valuable price discovery and still produce many wrong interim prices.

FalconX’s research presents the positive case that liquid pre IPO trading can precede and help anticipate a public market. Its historical examples are informative, but Anthropic has a different investor base, growth profile and disclosure schedule. A market that predicts one listing does not have a guarantee on the next. A comparison after Anthropic’s actual listing would have to date each derivative quote and account for differences in contract units and share terms.

The contract’s operator and exchange infrastructure can publish enough information for that comparison. Dated oracle inputs, funding history, executable depth, open interest and any contract updates would allow outsiders to assess how the indicated valuation was formed. Without those records, the $1.95 trillion figure risks being repeated as a company fact when it is a venue specific market mark.

What to watch

Entropy specifications: Any change to io:ANTH’s oracle, leverage, valuation unit, funding or resolution terms.
Executable depth: Bid and ask amounts near the mark, alongside volume and open interest at a dated snapshot.
External evidence: Anthropic’s actual offering documents or verified private share transactions with comparable rights.
Oracle behavior: The gap between local book, published oracle and mark during major news or low liquidity.
Listing event: Whether a public share price becomes available and how the contract’s stated settlement process uses it.

FAQ

Can I buy Anthropic stock through the io:ANTH perp?
No. The Entropy contract is a synthetic perpetual on implied valuation. It conveys no Anthropic share or ownership rights.

What did the $1.95 trillion number mean?
It was MarketWatch’s October 15 snapshot of the valuation implied by the Hyperliquid linked market, not a completed sale of Anthropic at that price.

Did Anthropic receive the $21 million traded?
No. The reported amount was 24 hour notional turnover in a derivative market. It was not a company capital raise.

Who operates io:ANTH?
Entropy operates the market as a HIP 3 deployer using Hyperliquid’s trading infrastructure. The deployer sets market specific oracle and risk parameters.

How is a price possible without public shares?
Traders bid and offer a synthetic contract, while its operator defines a reference using market and external inputs. No public stock sale is needed for the derivative to trade.

Is the quote a per share price?
No. A point in io:ANTH’s price corresponds to $1 billion of implied company value under the contract’s convention.

Can a trader be liquidated before an IPO?
Yes. A leveraged perpetual position is margined continuously and can be closed under exchange risk rules after an adverse mark move, regardless of a later listing.

Is this a verified valuation of Anthropic?
No. It is a price in a particular synthetic market whose liquidity and oracle design should be evaluated. 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 15, 2026.

Very important data was released in the US yesterday and today. Yesterday’s CPI and today’s PPI data both exceeded expectations. CPI is currently almost double the Fed’s 2% target, while PPI is more than three times that target. PPI inflation was expected to fall in August, but instead it surged to 6.3%, reaching its second highest level in four years.

The fact that both inflation and producer price index (PPI) in the US exceeded expectations strengthened the likelihood of the Fed raising interest rates in 2026, while putting pressure on cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin.

The Downside Risk in Bitcoin is Higher!
As Bitcoin fell to the $80,000 level, on-chain analytics firm Glassnode stated that BTC was trading near its support level.

At this point, Glassnode noted that while BTC is trading near the $80,000 support level, there are also liquidation zones in the futures market that could trigger sharp price movements both upwards and downwards.

Citing estimated BTC futures liquidation data based on price ranges over the past two months, Glassnode noted that a large portion of long position liquidations were concentrated below $80,000, with another significant liquidation zone around $75,000.

Glassnode stated that the concentration of long position liquidations below $80,000 poses a significant risk that could accelerate Bitcoin’s decline.

In contrast, Glassnode noted that short liquidations on the upside have accumulated to over $85,000 this week.

Finally, Glassnode added that the downward liquidation zones currently appear more vulnerable than the upper range. In other words, the risk of a sharp downward move being triggered under current market conditions is seen as higher than that of an upward move. Furthermore, crypto analyst Darkfost, using a pseudonym, predicts that the correction in Bitcoin could deepen to $74,600.

According to Elliott Wave theory, the analyst states that the fifth wave of the uptrend has been completed and a correction process may have begun, suggesting that the $74,600 level seems possible. At this point, the analyst said that the decline may continue in the short term, but the uptrend has not yet been broken in the medium term.

*This is not investment advice.

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

Bitcoin briefly slid below $80,000 for the first time in almost a month, swept up in a broader retreat from risk assets as an AI-led selloff on Wall Street undercut crypto’s attempt to rebuild a bullish tone.

The largest digital asset weakened as US stocks opened lower, with the Nasdaq 100 dropping as much as 1.8% after signs of slowing revenue growth at Anthropic deepened questions about the artificial-intelligence trade. Treasury yields fell as investors sought safety in bonds, while producer-price data and stronger-than-expected retail sales did little to shake expectations that the Federal Reserve will keep rates higher for longer.

Crypto is being pulled between those two forces: bullish sentiment among digital-asset analysts on one side, and a broader defensive turn across speculative markets on the other. Jeff Anderson, head of US at STS Digital, said the inflation data will “really hurt risk appetite” as markets enter the Fed blackout period with rate expectations “on a knife’s edge.”

The original digital asset slumped as much as 2.4% to $79,720, the least since Sept. 18. Bitcoin later pared the decline as stocks swung between gains and losses.

Traders are taking the dip as a warning sign of a broader directional downturn for Bitcoin, and are backing away from previous price targets of $100,000. On the crypto options platform Derive.xyz, the priced-in probability of Bitcoin climbing to $100,000 by Christmas fell by 2.8 percentage points to 9.7% over the past 24 hours, Derive.xyz founder Nick Forster said.

“This immediate pull-back from long-term upside bets alongside aggressive short-term hedging shows a dramatic regime shift, with institutional participants rapidly reassessing their macro risk exposure as the path for interest rates turns murky again,” Forster added.

Bitcoin has fallen 3.6% over the past 24 hours to around $81,500 as stronger-than-expected U.S. producer inflation has renewed concerns about another Federal Reserve interest rate increase.

Summary

U.S. producer prices rose 1.3% in September, the largest monthly increase since March 2022.
Annual wholesale inflation reached 6.3%, following Wednesday’s 3.7% consumer inflation reading.
Bitcoin traded near $81,500 after recording a 24-hour low of $80,443.
CME FedWatch pricing cited in the initial report put October rate hike odds at 34%.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Oct. 15 that September’s producer price index rose 1.3% from August, accelerating from the previous month’s revised 0.5% increase.

On an annual basis, the agency recorded a 6.3% rise in wholesale prices, the fastest increase since December 2022. The release followed Wednesday’s consumer inflation report, giving investors a second set of stronger price readings before the Fed’s October policy meeting.

Bitcoin retreats after failing to clear $84,000
According to the initial market report, Bitcoin traded around $81,500 following the PPI release, with its daily decline exceeding 3.6%. The report also placed Bitcoin below its 50-day moving average and recorded a 24-hour low of $80,443.

Before the inflation releases, crypto.news reported that Bitcoin had approached $83,900 during Asian trading on Oct. 14 before retreating toward $83,500, leaving a recovery above $84,000 incomplete.

In that coverage, analyst Ali Martinez identified $84,000 as a potential breakout level on the 4-hour chart. Martinez’s proposed route toward $93,000 depended on a confirmed close above resistance and continued upward price movement; it was a conditional target rather than a forecast that Bitcoin would reach that price.

The same report cited New York Fed President John Williams’ Oct. 13 remarks that another increase could be appropriate before the end of 2026, while economic conditions did not indicate a need for additional increases in 2027.

Energy prices drive September’s wholesale inflation increase
Within the September release, BLS attributed more than 80% of the increase in final-demand goods prices to energy, where prices jumped 10.8%. The agency recorded a 20.3% increase in gasoline prices, alongside increases in diesel, jet fuel, residential electricity and crude petroleum.

For final-demand goods overall, BLS reported a 2.6% monthly increase, the largest since the series began in December 2009. Food prices rose 1.2%, while goods excluding food and energy increased 0.3%, according to the release.

Across services, the agency recorded a 0.8% increase. BLS attributed nearly half of that advance to a 1.4% rise in trade-service margins, with transportation and warehousing services also becoming more expensive.

Using its measure excluding food, energy and trade services, BLS reported a 0.5% monthly increase and a 5% annual rise.

For comparison, July 15 coverage of Bitcoin’s rally after softer PPI described the opposite market reaction: Bitcoin reclaimed $65,000 after June producer inflation came in below expectations.

According to that report’s CME FedWatch snapshot, the probability of a July rate increase fell to 10.2%, down from roughly 16% after the preceding CPI release and above 30% a week earlier. The July report also recorded a 0.3% monthly decline in headline producer prices, while core PPI rose 0.2%, below the expected 0.3%.

October rate expectations remain divided after CPI and PPI
Following Wednesday’s CPI release, Reuters reported that annual consumer inflation reached 3.7%, while core inflation came in at 2.6%, exceeding the 2.5% forecast in its economist poll.

In the same report, PPHC chief economist Martin Beck said persistent inflation remained a concern, although weaker employment data and fragile consumer sentiment could allow the Fed to hold rates in October.

By Thursday, the initial report’s CME FedWatch snapshot assigned a 34% probability to a quarter-point October increase and a 66% probability to unchanged rates. Reuters separately reported roughly 30% odds, with the next policy meeting scheduled for Oct. 27–28.

Despite the inflation readings, Reuters recorded falling Treasury yields and a weaker dollar on Thursday. Its report also placed the Fed’s current benchmark range at 3.75%–4%, following September’s quarter-point increase.

U.S. Bitcoin ETF flows had slowed before the inflation releases
For U.S.-listed investment products, an Oct. 3 report documented slower Bitcoin ETF inflows during Sep. 28–Oct. 2, citing Farside Investors’ provisional figures.

According to the report, the funds attracted a provisional $82.9 million over that period, compared with $2.39 billion in the preceding week. BlackRock’s Friday entry was still pending when the figures were checked, so the reported weekly total was incomplete.

Across the individual sessions, Farside’s figures showed $31 million arriving on Monday and $66.2 million on Tuesday, followed by $148.7 million in Wednesday withdrawals. Thursday brought $102.7 million in inflows, while Friday’s reported intake stood at $31.7 million before the outstanding entry.

At the fund level, the report recorded $167.9 million in weekly withdrawals from Fidelity’s FBTC, $38.6 million from Bitwise’s BITB and $54.6 million from Grayscale’s GBTC. BlackRock’s IBIT attracted $292 million across Monday through Thursday, according to the same historical snapshot.

Large XRP holders have ramped up their transfers to Binance, bringing whale deposits to the cryptocurrency exchange to the highest levels seen in seven months. This development comes as XRP’s price continues to slip, trading close to $1.30 after it fell below major technical support levels.

Whale inflows surge, price faces pressureData from blockchain analytics firm CryptoQuant shows the 30-day total of significant XRP deposits to Binance stands at nearly 1.6 billion tokens. This figure matches levels reported in early April. By late July, the sum had fallen to about 400 million XRP, so the pace of large-holder deposits has quadrupled in less than three months. The most substantial single-day deposit activity occurred in mid-August, coinciding with XRP briefly rallying to $1.70.

Whale inflows to exchanges often attract attention because assets transferred to trading platforms are more readily available for sale. One analyst commented that increased deposits by large holders can expand the volume of XRP on centralized exchanges, increasing the risk of selling pressure as a result. While deposits do not guarantee an imminent sale, they do facilitate larger trades if sentiment weakens.

Increased whale inflows to centralized exchanges can increase the amount of XRP available for trading, potentially raising the risk of selling pressure.

PeriodXRP Whale Deposits to BinanceEarly April1.6 billion XRPLate July400 million XRPCurrent (Past 30 days)1.6 billion XRPXRP’s technical signals and support levelsXRP touched a peak near $1.66 in late September but has since dropped by about 20%. The token has fallen below the 100-day moving average and the 200-day moving average around $1.38—a bearish signal for market participants. Trading volume has also decreased, and the daily relative strength index (RSI) currently sits near 35, reflecting weak momentum. While not yet in oversold territory, the token is hovering near its next support at $1.28, having just tested this level. If downward pressure persists, the $1.00 to $1.05 area is viewed as the next significant price floor.

Technical analysts often interpret a break below two key moving averages as confirmation of a negative trend, with persistent whale deposits worsening the outlook for potential buyers.

For XRP buyers to regain control, the price would need to reclaim $1.38, putting it back above both moving averages. Until then, the market appears to remain in favor of sellers, and additional downside toward $1.20 is possible if whale inflows continue while prices stay under $1.30. Conversely, if significant deposits slow and the token holds above support, the current correction could simply represent a pause within a broader trading range.

Mixed signals from on-chain activityXRP Ledger’s on-chain data presents a mixed picture. Daily network transactions remain steady at approximately 2.4 million, and the number of active accounts has risen 10%. However, payment transactions have dropped by 38% and overall payment volume is down 52%. This pattern suggests more wallet activity, likely linked to trading rather than increased real-world payments or adoption.

Founded by Ripple Labs, the XRP Ledger is an open-source blockchain designed to facilitate global payments and currency exchange. It supports a wide range of tokenized assets and provides fast, low-cost transactions.

Mini dictionary: CryptoQuant, a blockchain analytics platform that provides real-time data on cryptocurrency flows, including exchange activity and investor behavior analysis.

Until price action reverses and whale activity subsides, analysts believe caution is warranted for market participants watching XRP’s next moves.

Key Takeaways

Donald Trump named XRP, Solana and Cardano in his March 2025 cryptocurrency reserve announcement, triggering a market rally.
His executive order ultimately prioritized Bitcoin while placing other cryptocurrencies under a separate US Digital Asset Stockpile.
The government cannot actively purchase XRP for the stockpile under the existing order without additional executive or legislative action.

President Donald Trump once appeared to give XRP a major political endorsement, naming the Ripple-linked cryptocurrency among five digital assets proposed for a US crypto reserve.

But more than a year later, an important question remains: Does Trump actually support XRP, or was the announcement largely political messaging?

The answer lies in the difference between Trump’s March 2025 social media announcement and the executive order that followed.

While the president publicly named XRP, the administration’s formal cryptocurrency strategy established a clear preference for Bitcoin.

 
Why Did Trump Include XRP in His Crypto Reserve Announcement?
On March 2, 2025, Trump announced on Truth Social that his proposed US crypto reserve would include XRP, Solana (SOL) and Cardano (ADA).

He subsequently added Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH), describing the two largest cryptocurrencies as central to the reserve.

The announcement triggered an immediate market reaction.

According to Reuters, the cryptocurrency market gained more than $300 billion in value within hours, while Bitcoin jumped over 11% and Ethereum climbed approximately 13%.

However, controversy emerged over how XRP entered the discussion.

In May 2025, Politico reported that a lobbying firm previously working for Ripple had helped craft Trump’s original crypto reserve message.

Trump was reportedly angered after learning about the firm’s Ripple connection.

The account raised questions about whether XRP’s inclusion reflected a carefully developed government strategy or outside lobbying influence.

Bitcoin Reserve vs XRP Stockpile: What Trump’s Executive Order Actually Says
On March 6, 2025, Trump signed an executive order establishing two separate government cryptocurrency holdings structures.

The distinction matters.

The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve holds government-owned Bitcoin obtained through forfeitures, with provisions for additional budget-neutral acquisitions.

The US Digital Asset Stockpile, meanwhile, covers other cryptocurrencies acquired through criminal or civil forfeitures.

Unlike Bitcoin, XRP cannot be purchased for the stockpile under the existing executive order without further executive or legislative action.

The order also does not explicitly name XRP, Ethereum, Solana or Cardano as mandatory holdings.

Instead, the stockpile’s composition depends on the digital assets the government legally obtains.

Treasury has discretion over managing those assets, including potential sales, whereas Bitcoin deposited in the strategic reserve is intended to remain held.

Is Trump Bullish on XRP, and Could the US Government Buy It?
Trump’s announcement demonstrated political recognition of XRP, but it did not establish a government investment commitment.

That distinction is especially important for XRP price predictions.

A government purchasing program could potentially create additional demand. Simply retaining confiscated tokens does not produce the same market effect.

As of October 2026, publicly available official information does not establish the existence of a dedicated federal XRP buying program or a verified total of XRP held in the stockpile.

For Ripple and the broader XRP ecosystem, regulatory clarity and institutional adoption may therefore matter more than Trump’s original announcement.

The administration’s crypto-friendly direction could support industry development, but it does not guarantee XRP purchases, price appreciation, or preferential treatment.

The bottom line: Trump publicly backed XRP’s inclusion in a proposed crypto reserve, but his implemented policy gives Bitcoin a fundamentally different status. Until Washington authorizes XRP purchases or establishes a more explicit policy, claims that the US government is actively accumulating XRP remain unsupported.

Top Trending Crypto Articles

 
The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, financial advice. We do not make any warranties regarding the completeness, reliability, or accuracy of this information. All investments involve risk, and past performance does not guarantee future results. We recommend consulting a financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

Dr. Guneet Kaur is a senior editor at CCN.com and a Science Fellow at Exponential Science. She is a fintech and blockchain expert with extensive experience in digital finance education, blockchain ecosystems, and cryptocurrency markets. She has worked with global media such as Cointelegraph, as well as education and blockchain platforms, to design and lead strategic content and learning initiatives. As an educator and assessor for top-tier executive programs, she bridges real-world fintech trends with academic insight.

Dr. Kaur is also a published researcher and peer reviewer across fintech and data science journals, including Financial Innovation Journal and International Journal of Big Data Intelligence and Applications. Her work spans data-driven analysis, Web3 innovation, and technical content development. With a strong foundation in both industry and academia, she translates complex financial technologies into practical applications, empowering learners, professionals, and institutions across the rapidly evolving digital finance landscape.

Tether Invests in AIsa to Expand Its Push into AI-Powered Payments and Programmable Money

Investment advances Tether’s ambition to give people and businesses greater access to knowledge and financial tools 15 October 2026 – Tether Capital today announced a strategic investment in AIsa, a company that enables AI agents to access and pay for data, software, and computing services.

As AI agents move from answering questions to conducting research, using software and managing workflows, they keep running into purchasing systems built for people. Reaching a paid data source or software tool often means opening a separate account, subscription, or contract, which leaves a person to set up each service before the agent can get to work.

AIsa removes that friction by combining access and payment in one platform. Developers can connect agents to AI models, data, APIs, software tools, and computing resources through a single interface. Usage is billed in fiat or stablecoins, with spending limits set by the business. An agent doing market research, for example, can retrieve paid data as needed, without anyone managing a separate subscription for every source.

Tether believes wider access to AI must come with wider access to the financial tools needed to use it. By supporting AIsa, it aims to help more people and businesses benefit from technology that can increasingly carry out work on their behalf.

“We want people to have access to knowledge and financial tools, and the freedom to decide how they use them,” said Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether. “As AI agents take on more work, people need a way to give them access to services while keeping control over what they spend. AIsa is building that infrastructure, and we see an opportunity to make these capabilities useful to a much wider group of people and businesses.”

AIsa reports more than 250,000 agents running on its platform and over 100 million transactions processed. Its network offers access to more than 5,000 APIs, skills and models through one key, with payment per call instead of separate vendor contracts. Businesses can buy resources as needed, and providers can sell their services directly into automated workflows. For smaller teams, that means research, analysis, and other specialist work with far fewer subscriptions to manage.

AIsa’s previous funding round drew backing from leading technology companies, financial institutions and venture investors, including major groups in Asia. Tether’s investment builds on that support and expands its presence in agentic payments.

The investment fits a pattern in Tether’s recent work. It follows its investment in NEURA Robotics, which included plans to integrate Tether’s Wallet Development Kit (WDK) and QVAC into robotic systems so machines can run AI locally and transact within predefined limits. WDK enables developers to build self-custodial wallets, while QVAC is designed to run AI directly on users’ devices. Backing AIsa extends the same goal, giving people greater control over their money and access to intelligence, to the services they need when agents do the work.

About Tether Capital

Tether Capital is the independent investment arm of Tether, the largest company in the digital assets industry. Based in El Salvador, the company deploys capital from Tether’s profits and excess reserves across a wide range of sectors where technology, infrastructure, and real-world utility intersect.

Its portfolio includes investments in artificial intelligence, financial services, energy, biotechnology, education, and digital media, as well as strategic stakes in industries such as commodities, remittances, and sports and entertainment. Tether Capital supports ventures with long-term potential to improve access, efficiency, and resilience in both emerging and developed markets. Its work supports Tether Group’s broader mission to strengthen decentralized systems, promote infrastructure resilience, and expand real-world access to open, transparent technologies.

Ripple’s recent launch of the Ripple Treasury platform has sparked renewed discussion around the potential integration of XRP into mainstream financial infrastructure. Crypto researcher SMQKE suggested that the new platform could serve as a bridge for XRP to connect with the widely used SWIFT interbank messaging network, drawing increased attention from market participants monitoring XRP’s adoption prospects.

Ripple Treasury: Expanding Institutional ServicesRipple, a San Francisco-based financial technology company known for its focus on blockchain-based payment solutions, introduced Ripple Treasury on January 28, 2026. This release came after Ripple’s $1 billion acquisition of GTreasury, a prominent provider of treasury management software, in October 2025. The new platform merges GTreasury’s tools for managing corporate funds with Ripple’s digital asset technology, enabling firms to oversee both traditional currencies and digital holdings in a single location.

Ripple Treasury allows businesses to conduct cross-border settlements using RLUSD, Ripple’s US dollar-pegged stablecoin. Clients also gain access to overnight repurchase agreements and tokenized money-market funds, expanding their options for cash management and short-term financing.

These services are designed to integrate with existing corporate finance operations. Companies can streamline their treasury functions without the need to overhaul banking relationships or transact directly with XRP unless they choose to do so.

Mini dictionary: GTreasury, a company specializing in corporate treasury management software, helps businesses handle cash, liquidity, payments, and risk, simplifying complex financial operations for major enterprises.

XRP and the SWIFT Network: Real Integration or Speculation?SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, operates a vast financial messaging system that banks rely on for secure international payments. Due to SWIFT’s central role in global finance, any discussion about connecting it with digital assets like XRP draws significant interest from investors seeking institutional adoption and expanded real-world utility for cryptocurrencies.

On social media, SMQKE highlighted a potential synergy, writing, “Ripple Treasury + XRP and SWIFT.” He asserted that the new platform “will facilitate the entry of XRP into the SWIFT network.” This assertion gathered traction among XRP holders, though no formal announcement has come from SWIFT or Ripple confirming such an integration.

Any direct connection between XRP and SWIFT remains unconfirmed at this point. Ripple Treasury establishes new capabilities for institutional clients, but evidence of SWIFT adopting XRP for payment settlement has not yet emerged.

The scope of potential collaboration remains uncertain. While Ripple can offer businesses tools for liquidity and cross-border payments, corporate clients may opt to use Ripple’s stablecoin RLUSD or other assets, depending on their requirements. The use of XRP itself would depend on future specifics of any partnership or integration.

Platform/NetworkPurposeAsset(s) SupportedCurrent Connection with XRPRipple TreasuryInstitutional treasury and cross-border settlementXRP, RLUSD, traditional currenciesDirectSWIFTGlobal interbank payments messagingTraditional currenciesUnconfirmedXRP Price: The Utility versus Value DebateThe debate over XRP’s utility and its market price surfaced prominently in online discussions. Community member Fabrizio Scudu commented on whether increased business adoption of the Ripple ecosystem would translate into value for XRP holders. He argued that utility alone is not enough if it does not also impact XRP’s price.

Scudu noted, “But the price is wrong… it’s pointless to say we need to look at utility. We all look at utility, but if it doesn’t translate into a fair value for #XRP, nobody cares anymore.”

Many XRP holders share similar reservations, emphasizing that Ripple’s expansion in financial services does not automatically translate into market gains for the digital asset. For SMQKE’s claims of a SWIFT connection to hold significant value, stakeholders expect to see actual implementation of XRP within the SWIFT network, rather than speculative associations.

Until there is official confirmation or evidence of widespread settlement activity involving XRP on SWIFT, such connections remain the subject of community debate and ongoing market speculation.

Firelight has added $31M of cover to Kraken’s Protected Strategies USDC vault. That gives depositors a backstop if the underlying DeFi plumbing springs a leak.

The coverage went live on October 15, 2026. It arrives just nine days after Firelight itself launched.

How the coverage works The vault is curated by Sentora, which routes deposits into what it describes as blue-chip DeFi venues. Firelight’s cover sits on top as a second layer of protection.

Each depositor address is capped at $100,000 of coverage per coverage period.

The policy targets specific technical failures. Covered events include smart contract exploits and oracle failures. Oracles are the data feeds that tell onchain programs what prices are. When they break, a protocol can make very confident decisions based on very wrong numbers.

Coverage terms are established and verified onchain every 30 days, so the parameters can be adjusted as the vault’s risk profile shifts.

Payouts are handled by Sentora, not guaranteed by Kraken. Depositors are not getting a promise from the exchange’s balance sheet. They are relying on the cover structure that Firelight and Sentora have built around the product.

Who decides when a claim pays out A consortium of five independent firms validates each claim. At least three of the five must vote in favor before a payout is activated.

Once a claim clears, funds come from a shared, non-custodial pool made up of staked FXRP alongside a protocol-owned first-loss buffer.

FXRP is a representation of XRP that operates on the Flare Network, where Firelight is built. Stakers who put FXRP into the pool effectively act as underwriters. The first-loss buffer is capital the protocol itself owns, and it absorbs losses before stakers’ funds are touched.

Background: a fast start for Firelight Firelight launched on October 6, 2026, on the Flare Network. Its first product covered the USD Protected Vault. The protocol has also raised $8 million in seed funding.

Sentora’s total value locked across its strategies exceeds $2.8 billion, with significant deposits sitting in Kraken’s DeFi Earn products. Against that $2.8 billion figure, the $31M of cover is a modest slice.

What this means for depositors and DeFi yield The $100,000 per-address limit means larger holders remain partly exposed. Coverage only applies to listed events, so losses from other causes may fall outside the policy. Payouts are not guaranteed by Kraken, so depositors are trusting the strength of the FXRP pool and the judgment of the five-firm consortium.

Backing a USDC vault with staked FXRP means the cover is denominated in a different asset than the deposits it protects. If FXRP’s value fell sharply at the same moment a large claim landed, the pool’s capacity could look thinner than it does on paper. The protocol-owned first-loss buffer is designed to soften that kind of hit.

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

Three major developments are reshaping the future of Filecoin tokenomics and strategy this month.

Rewarding Customer Acquisition & Retention – New network reward mechanics will direct a growing share of block rewards to services that bring paying customers onto the network.
End of Vesting – Vesting built into the Filecoin genesis block completes, reducing the daily token supply growth by 75%.
New Products – New products give enterprises, AI agents and IPFS users a live path onto the network.

Filecoin is evolving for a future where digital storage is a core pillar. Global data creation will nearly triple between 2025 and 2029 from a proliferation of AI-driven automation, sensors, and rapidly expanding needs for context to drive intelligence. The pace of these changes have driven memory and storage prices to more than double in a year, and the time between ordering new hardware and being able to install it has grown dramatically.

Other catalysts are also causing huge shifts in the storage market, with growing demand for sovereignty over data. As storage gets scarcer, more expensive, and more location sensitive, decentralized storage is uniquely positioned to meet these demands.

Filecoin has made major progress on the priorities of its 2026 Network Strategy. Six years after launch, the Filecoin network is well poised, offering a model that hyperscalers and other incumbents cannot: an open market where independent storage providers build services, compete for customers, and earn network rewards based on the customers they serve.

“The Filecoin network is already the world’s largest decentralized storage network. This year has been an inflection point for the Filecoin network, with the Filecoin community’s focus shifting away from growing supply and towards scaling demand. This is happening at just the right moment, as AI fundamentally changes the demand for self-sovereign storage, positioning Filecoin to become essential infrastructure for an AI-native world.”

– Marta Belcher, President, Filecoin Foundation

New Incentive Mechanisms: Rewarding Customer Acquisition & Retention
Solstice will change how the Filecoin network distributes block rewards, starting this month. This is one of the most significant changes to Filecoin’s reward system since the network launched.

The change will drive a growing share of block rewards to services that bring paying customers onto the network, while less rewards go to consensus-only mining. Any unearned portion of that service share is burned rather than distributed.

This change is aimed at orienting the network fully around providing services for revenue from paying customers, with the aim to greatly increase the business opportunity for storage providers on the network globally and supporting exceptional storage delivery.

Vesting is Ending, Dropping Circulating Supply Growth 75%
The network’s sixth anniversary since launch also marks the scheduled end of vesting for Protocol Labs and Filecoin Foundation’s token allocations, set when the network launched in 2020. With vesting complete, the daily amount of new FIL entering circulation drops by roughly 75%, according to FilecoinTLDR’s modeling.

Filecoin is Built for Enterprises and AI Agent Developers
Integral Spacetime
Integral Spacetime is a new storage neocloud, launched this week, that leverages the Filecoin network to power its business. The new company’s approach unlocks new commercial opportunities in storage infrastructure.

Acquisitions: Integral Spacetime buys businesses with large storage needs and moves their data workloads onto the network, bringing thousands of paying customers at once.
Equipment financing: Signed customer contracts and recurring revenue from acquired businesses enable financing of new, next generation storage capacity, improving total competitiveness and making the Filecoin network an even better business opportunity for operators around the world.

Fil One
As storage costs climb at the same time that storage needs are growing rapidly, enterprise businesses accustomed to using S3 object storage are looking for alternatives. Fil One is building a commercial onramp for enterprise storage demand within the broader Filecoin ecosystem, delivering high-performance and S3-compatible object storage at a fraction of hyperscaler list prices, with no egress fees on paid plans. The competitive edge is driving an active pipeline of paid enterprise storage demand sourced heavily through a dedicated GTM sales team and channel partners across AI infrastructure, automotive, banking, and sovereign government workloads. Fil One bridges enterprise IT budgets into sustainable, recurring onchain protocol volume while positioning Filecoin directly alongside GPU compute in the emerging neocloud stack.

And we’re building for the AI era, placing storage close to GPU compute in neocloud facilities so training and inference data stays accessible, fast, and affordable with a new storage-for-neocloud offering that places Fil One next to GPU compute.

AI Agent Skills and Tooling
AI agents are becoming storage customers in their own right. They generate a steady stream of output that needs to be kept or shared, and they need to buy storage programmatically, without a sales cycle or enterprise contract.

Filecoin tooling is making it incredibly easy for agents to choose and buy storage directly. Filecoin’s publish skill takes any file or folder and returns a public link that stays live and can be verified. The Filecoin MCP server and foc-cli give agents the same result from the terminal or inside an AI assistant. In each case, a storage provider proves it holds the data, and payment settles onchain. Or, for agents that prefer to use S3, Fil One’s documentation surfaces exactly how to choose and use Filecoin’s high performance network instead of getting locked into an expensive incumbent.

IPFS Migration Tools Converting Customers
Filecoin storage has released features that make it a first class destination for IPFS content in 2026. New, easy migration tools give users a more cost-effective option attached to a wallet, not a user account, with content addressing. Already, several teams are choosing to store their pinned IPFS data on Filecoin, from NFT platforms to institutions with legal and compliance obligations around their data.

A Single Cohesive Strategy for a New Era: Closing the Economic Loop
A customer, whether an enterprise archiving records or an agent storing its outputs, pays for a recurring service, and that payment settles onchain. The storage provider serving that customer earns the revenue and locks FIL against it. Rewards flow toward the services customers keep using, and whatever incentive goes unearned, along with a portion of fees, is burned rather than distributed. The result is a network that becomes more attractive to the next enterprise, developer, and operator, which starts the cycle again.

“The Filecoin flywheel is connected end to end now, and it’s starting to build momentum. We’re still early but the feedback loop between useful storage, customer revenue, network value, and service provider rewards is fully assembled and we have a downhill run ahead of us to build on that momentum.”

– Molly Mackinlay, CEO, FilOz

What Comes Next for Filecoin
The network has made tremendous progress so far in 2026. Data storage is rapidly shifting from commodity service to a fundamental enabling pillar that unlocks the promise of AI. Filecoin’s improved tokenomics, competitive product positioning, and forward-thinking developer tools are propelling the network forward at just the right time to realize the promise of decentralized storage.

Revealed live at Ledger Op3n 2026, Ledger's new device, Ledger Atom™, will ship with the SolanadApp Store and wallet combined into one Seeker app.

, /PRNewswire/ -- Today, live on stage at Ledger Op3n 2026 in Paris, Solana Mobile, announced Ledger as its first hardware expansion partner. The SolanadApp Store and wallet will be combined into one Seeker app and integrated with Ledger Atom.

Ledger is Solana Mobile’s first hardware expansion partner. Ledger Atom™ will ship with the Seeker app preinstalled, giving Ledger users access to the Solana ecosystem.

The Solana dApp Store and wallet will be combined into one Seeker app on Ledger Atom.

This partnership builds on the hardware expansion Solana Mobile began in March 2026, when it opened the Solana Mobile Stack to Android manufacturers at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. Every new device leveraging the Solana Mobile Stack brings more people into the SKR ecosystem. More people bring more builders. And more builders bring better apps, which bring the next wave of people. The SKR token is at the heart of it all, allowing users to be rewarded for participating in the ecosystem, developers for building and hardware manufacturers for integrating.

Ledger Atom is a new security and privacy device that leverages Android Open Source Project (AOSP) alongside a Secure Element (EAL6+) running Ledger OS, with the display and touch control physically isolated from the Android operating system. Seeker app will be integrated with this secure technology and preinstalled on the new device, serving as a gateway for Ledger users to the Solana ecosystem.

Ledger Atom will contain advanced anti-tampering and tamper-evident solutions from packaging to the device itself, including methods to help detect if the enclosure has been opened. Ledger Atom will only be sold directly on Ledger's official site.

"Great experiences come from teams who focus on the details, and Solana Mobile is one of those teams. Seeker made self-custody feel natural on mobile. Having the Seeker app on Ledger Atom from day one just makes sense, so Ledger users get access to the Solana ecosystem without giving up any of the security." — Ian Rogers, Chief Human Agency Officer, Ledger

Expanding beyond our own hardware

It's the right moment to expand: Seeker has proven people will hold and use their assets from hardware built for it, with over $13B in transaction volume on Seeker, 154 million transactions, and over 1,500 apps on the SolanadApp Store. The Seeker app on Ledger Atom gives users the best of both worlds: access to the world of Solana with the hardware expertise of Ledger.

App stores are one of the least contestable markets in the world. A few companies decide what ships and take up to a 30% cut of every transaction. Solana Mobile built the SolanadApp Store to change that. Developers can ship the crypto features other app stores often restrict, get reviewed in days instead of weeks, and reach an engaged audience that actually uses crypto every day. It was never supposed to live on just Seeker.

If you own a Seeker, nothing changes, Seeker will stay fully supported. If you build for Solana Mobile, the same SolanadApp Store submission now reaches an expanded audience across multiple devices. Ledger Atom users will join you in the Solana Mobile ecosystem as we bring the same experience to them with the Seeker app.

"The Seeker phone proved what a crypto-native mobile community can do: shipping over a thousand apps with billions in transaction volume from over 100,000 users, and founders finding their first customers in a matter of days. Now we're thrilled to take the Solana Mobile ecosystem further with Ledger, and I'm excited for Ledger Atom users to experience the magic that Seeker users have been experiencing for over a year." — Anatoly Yakovenko, Co-Founder and CEO, Solana Labs

What's in the Seeker app on Ledger Atom

The Seeker app will bring the core Solana Mobile experience to Ledger's hardware security model, enabling Ledger Atom users to:

Connect to the Solana ecosystem on day one. The Seeker app will be preloaded and featured on Ledger Atom's home screen.
Approve securely. Signing and approvals in the Seeker app will happen in Ledger Atom's Secure Mode, backed by the Secure Element and Ledger OS, so the transaction users confirm is the one they sign.
Discover apps. The SolanadApp Store will be built in, with 1500+ dApps available today on Seeker coming to Ledger Atom, spanning trading, payments, gaming, AI, and more.
How to reserve a Ledger Atom

Reservations for Ledger Atom are open now.

Get yours today: ledger.com/seeker

Missed the keynote? Watch the Ledger Op3n 2026 replay here.

About Solana Mobile

Solana Mobile Inc. shipped the Saga in 2023 and the Seeker in 2025, establishing the first production-validated mobile platform for hardware-secured digital asset management. With over 200,000 devices sold and $13B+ in transaction volume, we're now focused on scaling the platform through new hardware partners and the expansion of the economy around SKR, the native asset of the Solana Mobile ecosystem.

Media Contact: [email protected]

SOURCE Solana Mobile

TLDR VanEck filed a request with the SEC to withdraw its application for a Lido staked Ether ETF. The firm said it does not intend to proceed with selling shares of the fund. The fund’s S-1 registration statement was first filed on Oct. 16, 2025. The ETF would have held Lido staked Ether (stETH) and earned certain staking rewards. VanEck did not explain its decision or say if a replacement product is planned. Asset manager VanEck has asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to let it withdraw its application for a Lido staked Ether exchange-traded fund. The move shelves a product designed to give investors exposure to a liquid staking token.

The request was made in a filing dated Oct. 14, 2026. In it, VanEck Digital Assets said it “does not intend to proceed with the planned distribution” of the trust’s shares.

The company did not explain what led to the decision. It also did not say whether it plans to pursue a replacement product.

What the Fund Was Meant to Do VanEck first filed the fund’s S-1 registration statement on Oct. 16, 2025. An S-1 is the form companies use to register new securities with the SEC.

The proposed fund would have held Lido staked Ether, known as stETH. This token represents Ether that has been staked through the Lido protocol.

According to the original filing, the fund expected to earn certain staking rewards through its ownership of stETH. Staking rewards are paid to users who lock up tokens to help secure a blockchain network.

The application was one of several new crypto ETF filings submitted in October 2025.

Details of the Withdrawal Request The withdrawal was filed as a Form RW, which is a request for withdrawal. It was made under Rule 477 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The letter was sent to the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance in Washington, D.C. It was signed by Matthew A. Babinsky, a vice president at VanEck Digital Assets.

VanEck asked the SEC to approve the withdrawal as of the filing date, or at the earliest practical date after that. The request covers the original registration statement, all later amendments and all exhibits.

The firm said its only reason for the withdrawal is that it no longer plans to distribute the trust’s shares. No other grounds were given in the letter.

VanEck also confirmed several facts about the fund’s status. The registration statement was never declared effective by the SEC.

The firm said no shares have been issued or sold under the registration statement, and none will be. It added that no preliminary prospectus for the fund was ever handed out.

The letter named two lawyers at the law firm Sidley Austin LLP as contacts for any questions. They are Cliff Cone and Etherial Edetan.

The registration statement carried SEC file number 333-290918. VanEck Digital Assets is based at 666 Third Avenue in New York City.

Cointelegraph reached out to VanEck Digital Assets for comment on the decision. The company has not yet publicly explained why it dropped the fund.

Lido has launched direct ETH staking through its interface on Arbitrum, Base, Linea, and Optimism, using Chainlink CCIP to eliminate manual bridging while keeping Ethereum mainnet responsible for staking operations.

Lido Launches Direct ETH Staking on Four Layer-2 Networks
Lido announced the integration on October 15, allowing users to stake ETH directly through its official platform. The service allows for the native support of 4 Ethereum Layer-2 networks, without the need for users to move assets between chains.

Users can now deposit ETH into their existing account via the interface and receive wrapped staked ETH. The token represents their staked position, while its exchange value increases as staking rewards accumulate over time.

Previously, users would need to transfer ETH to the Ethereum mainnet and then transfer their staking tokens back in the future. Lido launched the same staking route functionality via third-party platforms first before launching it inside its own platform.

Chainlink CCIP Handles Cross-Chain ETH Transfers
The staking process involves coordinating transfers between Ethereum and supported networks via Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) by Chainlink. Users receive wstETH from liquidity pools in the same L2 network where they put ETH.

The system deposits ETH behind the interface, and stakes it on Lido on Ethereum mainnet. The newly minted wstETH is then returned to the network of origin to add to the liquidity pool.

Chainlink price feeds determine conversion rates using Lido’s protocol exchange rate, without relying on exchange market prices. The integration follows Chainlink’s recent launch of CCIP Vault Adapters, which introduced another application for its cross-chain infrastructure.

Lido Maintains Ethereum Staking Fees and Reward Structure
Despite the interface update, Lido continues processing staking transactions through its existing Ethereum mainnet contracts.The protocol retains 10% of staking rewards, leaving the remaining 90% for participating stakers.

Users still pay transaction gas fees on their selected Layer-2 networks during the staking process. Separate funding of contract balances pays for cross-chain costs, which in turn does not take up staking deposits.

The launch follows VanEck’s withdrawal of its proposed Lido staked Ethereum ETF on October 14. The asset manager filed a proposed statement of withdrawal prior to the asset manager obtaining regulatory clearance for the proposed fund.

In October 2024, Lido announced direct staking support for three chains, Arbitrum, Base, and Optimism. Linea was integrated with XSwap, OpenOcean, and Interport in October of 2025.

Arkham Intelligence has rolled out Visualizer 2.0, a rebuilt version of its tool for turning blockchain activity into interactive maps.

The company announced the release on October 15, 2026, through its official channels. The pitch is simple: paste in a wallet address or a known entity, and watch its money move.

What’s new in Visualizer 2.0
The core function stays the same. Users enter any crypto address or entity, and the tool renders its incoming and outgoing transactions as a graph.

Version 2.0 makes that graph interactive and updates it in real time. Inflows, outflows, counterparties and token movements all show up visually rather than as rows in a spreadsheet.

On top of that foundation, Arkham layered several new features:

Volume overview: a panel summarizing the flow of funds at a glance.
Transaction details module: a dedicated space for digging into individual transfers.
Keyboard shortcuts: including cmd/ctrl + Z to undo, for faster navigation.
Save and share: users can store custom visualizations and pass them along to others.
Live filters: graphs can be narrowed by token type, USD value, transaction direction, time frame or chain.

How Visualizer fits Arkham’s toolkit
Visualizer is one piece of a broader analytics suite. Arkham also offers Tracer and Dashboards, and together the tools are built for network analysis of blockchain activity.

Within that lineup, Visualizer has been central to mapping transaction flows and, in Arkham’s framing, de-anonymizing on-chain activity.

The tool’s reach has grown alongside Arkham’s chain coverage. Support for Solana arrived starting in October 2024, followed by TON in November 2024.

The Visualizer 2.0 announcement did not include any pricing changes. It also arrived without third-party evaluations or any reported immediate market reaction.

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

PANews reported on October 15 that, according to SoSoValue data, yesterday (October 14, US Eastern Time), US XRP and ZEC spot ETFs recorded single-day total net inflows of $740,400 and $3,683,400 respectively, for a combined net inflow of $4,423,800.

For XRP, only the Bitwise XRP ETF (XRP) recorded a net inflow that day, amounting to $740,400, bringing the fund's cumulative net inflow to $688 million. As of press time, the total net asset value of XRP spot ETFs was $1.509 billion, with a net asset ratio of 1.80% and a cumulative net inflow of $1.803 billion.

For ZEC, only the Zcash ETF (ZCSH) recorded a net inflow that day, amounting to $3,683,400, with a cumulative net inflow of $179 million. As of press time, the total net asset value of ZEC spot ETFs was $645 million, with a net asset ratio of 3.33% and a cumulative net inflow of $179 million.