Market Signal Briefing

Ambev remains a Buy, supported by a robust balance sheet, strong cash generation, and leadership in Latin America despite macro headwinds. ABEV's Q4 delivered solid EBITDA growth and resilient free cash flow, with a P/FCF of 12.87 during a challenging year. Brazilian rate cuts, the 2026 FIFA World Cup, and a strong holiday calendar are set to drive demand and unlock further upside for ABEV.

NEW ORLEANS, Feb. 18, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors that they have until April 13, 2026 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against uniQure N.V. (NasdaqGS: QURE) (“uniQure” or the “Company”), if they purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s shares between September 24, 2025 and October 31, 2025, inclusive (the “Class Period”). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Get Help

uniQure investors should visit us at https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-qure/ or call toll-free (844) 367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to discuss your legal options.

About the Lawsuit

uniQure and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws.  

During the Class Period, the Company represented to investors that there was a high likelihood that its leading drug candidate, AMT-130, would receive accelerated approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) after the Company’s planned Biologics License Application (“BLA”) submission in the first quarter of 2026. However, on November 3, 2025, the Company disclosed that “the FDA currently no longer agrees that the data from the Phase I/II studies of AMT-130 in comparison to an external control, as per the prespecified protocols and statistical analysis plans shared with the FDA in advance of the analyses, may be adequate to provide the primary evidence in support of a BLA submission” and as a result, “the timing of the BLA submission for AMT-130 is now unclear.”

On this news, the price of uniQure’s shares plummeted $33.40 per share, or more than 49%, from a close of $67.69 per share on October 31, 2025, to close at $34.29 per share on November 3, 2025.

The case is Scocco v. uniQure N.V., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01124.

About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com.

New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - February 18, 2026) - WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Klarna Group plc (NYSE: KLAR) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Klarna's September 2025 initial public offering (the "IPO"), of the important February 20, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first filed by the Firm.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Klarna securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Klarna class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=48971 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 20, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants materially understated the risk that Klarna's loss reserves would materially go up within a few months of the IPO, which they either knew of or should have known of given the risk profile of many individuals agreeing to Klarna's buy now, pay later ("BNPL") loans; and (2); as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times and negligently prepared. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Klarna class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=48971 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

-------------------------------

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/284477

Source: The Rosen Law Firm PA

Ready to Announce with Confidence? Send us a message and a member of our TMX Newsfile team will contact you to discuss your needs.

Contact Us

Regis Resources Limited (RGRNF) Q2 2026 Earnings Call Transcript

NEW YORK, Feb. 18, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) --

WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Ardent Health, Inc. (NYSE: ARDT) between July 18, 2024 and November 12, 2025, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), of the important March 9, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Ardent Health securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Ardent Health class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=50392 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 9, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made misrepresentations regarding Ardent Health’s accounts receivable. Defendants publicly reported Ardent Health’s accounts receivable on a quarterly basis. They further stated that Ardent Health employed an active monitoring process to determine the collectability of its accounts receivable, and that this process included “detailed reviews of historical collections” as a “primary source of information.” Further, defendants represented that Ardent Health considered “trends in federal and state governmental healthcare coverage” and that its “management determines [when an] account is uncollectible, at which time the account is written off.” When defendants began to reveal increased claim denials by third-party payors, they downplayed the issue, stating that the increased payor denials were “turning [] more into a slow pay versus not getting paid,” and did not write-off the uncollectible accounts. In addition, defendants represented that Ardent Health maintained professional malpractice liability insurance in amounts “sufficient to cover claims arising out of [its] operations[.]” In truth, Ardent Health did not primarily rely on “detailed reviews of historical collections” in determining collectability of accounts receivable nor did “management determine[] [when an] account is uncollectible.” Instead, Ardent Health’s accounts receivable framework “utilized a 180-day cliff at which time an account became fully reserved.” This allowed Ardent Health to report higher amounts of accounts receivable during the Class Period, and delay recognizing losses on uncollectable accounts. And Ardent Health did not even maintain professional malpractice liability insurance in amounts “sufficient to cover claims arising out of [its] operations[.]” In truth, Ardent Health’s professional liability reserves were insufficient to cover “significant social inflationary pressure in medical malpractice cases the past several years,” which had been an “increasing dynamic year-over-year” in Ardent Health’s New Mexico market. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Ardent Health class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=50392 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

-------------------------------

Contact Information:

        Laurence Rosen, Esq.
        Phillip Kim, Esq.
        The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        Tel: (212) 686-1060
        Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
        Fax: (212) 202-3827
        [email protected]
        www.rosenlegal.com

New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - February 18, 2026) - WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: INO) between October 10, 2023 and December 26, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important April 7, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Inovio securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Inovio class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=52847 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 7, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: Inovio describes itself as a "biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of DNA medicines to treat and protect people from diseases associated with, inter alia, human papillomavirus ("HPV")." According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) manufacturing for Inovio's CELLECTRA device was deficient; (2) accordingly, Inovio was unlikely to submit the INO-3107 Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") by the second half of 2024; (3) Inovio had insufficient information to justify the INO-3107 BLA's eligibility for FDA accelerated approval or priority review; (4) accordingly, INO-3107's overall regulatory and commercial prospects were overstated; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Inovio class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=52847 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

-------------------------------

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/284479

Source: The Rosen Law Firm PA

Ready to Announce with Confidence? Send us a message and a member of our TMX Newsfile team will contact you to discuss your needs.

Contact Us

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of AVAV either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Despite rising geopolitical tensions, bets on an H1 2026 Fed rate cut to support a bullish medium-term outlook for US stock futures. Later on Thursday, US labor market data and developments in the Middle East will influence risk appetite ahead of Friday’s crucial US economic data.

Below, I’ll outline the key market drivers, the medium-term outlook, and the technical levels traders should watch.

US-Iran Conflict Risk Intensifies This week, the US and Iran failed to reach an agreement on all of the US administration’s demands, raising the threat of a full-blown US-Iran conflict. Reports of an imminent US-Iran war triggered market caution during the Asian session.

Axios reported a potential military strike in days, sending oil prices sharply higher. WTI crude advanced 0.65% in morning trading, extending on the previous day’s 4.4% rally. However, with diplomatic channels still open, markets remained hopeful that Tehran would buckle under Trump’s increased military threat to avoid a major conflict.

Developments in the Middle East will remain key to near-term price trends for US stock futures. Further escalation into a broader Middle East conflict could challenge the bullish medium-term outlook for US index futures.

US Labor Market and the Fed in Focus US futures posted modest gains during the Asian session on February 19. The Dow Jones E-mini climbed 7 points, while the Nasdaq 100 E-mini and the S&P 500 E-mini advanced 19 points and 2 points, respectively.

Later in Thursday’s session, US jobless claims will influence risk appetite. Economists expect initial jobless claims to fall from 227k (week ending February 7) to 225k (week ending February 14). Downward trends in claims would indicate a resilient US labor market, supporting a more hawkish Fed rate path. Delays to rate cuts would leave borrowing costs elevated, affecting corporate profits and stock valuations.

Beyond the data, traders should closely monitor FOMC members’ speeches following Wednesday’s FOMC Minutes. Growing support for a June rate cut after softer US inflation would boost demand for risk assets. For context, Committee members supported a rate cut if inflation cooled. At the time, Committee members only had access to December’s CPI Report. In January, headline US inflation fell from 2.7% to 2.4%, while core inflation eased from 2.6% to 2.5%.

According to the CME FedWatch Tool, the probability of a June Fed cut increased from 58.6% on February 11 to 61.2% on February 18 because of softer inflation numbers. Currently, markets expect two Fed rate cuts in 2026, with a year-end target rate of 3.00% -3.25%.

Key Technical Levels for Dow Jones, Nasdaq 100, and S&P 500 Despite the morning gains, the Nasdaq 100 E-mini and the S&P 500 E-mini remained below their 50-day EMAs, while holding above their 200-day EMAs. The EMA positions signaled a bearish near-term but bullish longer-term outlook. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones E-mini traded above its 50-day and 200-day EMAs, indicating a bullish bias that aligns with favorable fundamentals.

Near-term trends will hinge on US economic data, central bank rhetoric, and Middle East developments. Key levels to monitor include:

Dow Jones

Resistance: 50,000, the February 10 record high of 50,611, and then 51,000. Support: the 50-day EMA (49,061), and then 48,500.

Incyte started 2026 on a high note. On January 7, its stock hit an all-time high of $112.29. In my view, the key drivers of raised investor interest in Incyte are the strong performance of its ruxolitinib franchise.

(All amounts are expressed in US dollars, tabular amounts in millions, unless otherwise stated)

Record quarterly and annual free cash flow1 of $132.3 million and $330.0 million as Fortuna delivers on its operational plan and achieves production guidance

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Feb. 18, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Fortuna Mining Corp. (NYSE: FSM | TSX: FVI) (“Fortuna” or the “Company”) today reported its financial and operating results for the fourth quarter and full year of 2025.
(Results from the Company’s San Jose and Yaramoko assets have been excluded from the 2025 continuing results, along with the comparative figures, due to the classification of the assets as discontinued as at December 31, 2025 unless otherwise disclosed.)

        Jorge A. Ganoza President and CEO of Fortuna, commented, “Q4 was a strong end to the year as we delivered record free cash flow from operations of $132.3 million and returned $12.1 million to our shareholders.” Mr. Ganoza continued “We finished the year in line with production guidance but at a higher AISC due to the impact of rising metal prices on royalties, gold equivalent ratios and share based compensation expenses. Adjusting for these items our AISC would have been under $1,700 an ounce.” Mr. Ganoza concluded “2025 was a transition year for Fortuna as we streamlined our portfolio by divesting non-core assets and positioned the Company for its next phase of growth at Diamba Sud and the Séguéla plant expansion. All this is underpinned by one of the best balance sheets in our peer group with $704 million in liquidity and $381 million in net cash.”

Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Highlights

Cash and Cash Flow

Record free cash flow1 from ongoing operations of $132.3 million; $330.0 million for 2025$147.6 million of net cash from operating activities before changes in working capital or $0.48 per share; $455.4 million for the year or $1.48 per shareLiquidity increased to $704.0 million, and the net cash1 position strengthened to $381.5 million, from $58.8 million at the end of 2024, a YoY increase of $322.7 millionQuarter-end cash balance of $554.0 million, an increase of $115.7 million QoQ and $322.7 million YoY Profitability

Record adjusted attributable net income1 from continuing operations was $71.3 million or $0.23 basic EPS; $203.1 million or $0.66 basic EPS for 2025. Results for the quarter were impacted by lower production at Lindero due to downtime of the HPGR in DecemberAttributable net income from continuing operations of $68.1 million or $0.22 basic EPS; $269.7 million or $0.88 basic EPS for 2025 Return to Shareholders

In 2025, the Company returned $16.2 million to shareholders through its share buyback program with an additional $5.0 million in early 2026 Operational

Gold equivalent production (“GEO”) of 65,130 ounces; 317,001 GEOs in 2025 meeting annual guidanceConsolidated cash cost per GEO1 of $971; $944 for 2025 in line with guidanceConsolidated AISC per GEO1 of $2,054 for Q4 2025 and $1,870 for full year 2025. Excluding the impact of rising gold prices on royalties ($60/ounce), gold equivalent ratios ($54/ounce) and the value of the Company’s shares increasing share based compensation expenses ($60/ounce) AISC was $1,696 and within guidance.Total recordable injury frequency rate for the year was 0.74 which reflects continued strong safety performance; and zero lost time injuries in the quarter Growth and Business Development

Expanded Mineral Reserves at Séguéla by 31% and extending the mine life to over 9 years. Refer to the news release dated January 20, 2026 “Fortuna Expands Mineral Reserve Gold Ounces by 31% and Extends Life of Mine to Over 9 Years at the Séguéla Mine, Côte d’Ivoire”Commissioned a feasibility study to expand the plant throughput at Séguéla by 15 to 40% with results expected in the second quarter of 2026. Refer to the news release dated December 3, 2025 “Fortuna Awards the Séguéla Mine Plant Expansion Study, Côte d’Ivoire”At the Diamba Sud Gold Project, supported by robust PEA economics (Refer to the news release dated October 15, 2025, “Fortuna delivers robust PEA for Diamba Sud Gold Project in Senegal: After-tax IRR of 72% and NPV5% of US$563 million using US$2,750 per ounce”) the Company has allocated approximately $67 million to advance early works and the order of critical equipment to de-risk construction. A construction decision is targeted for mid 2026.
Cautionary Statement: The PEA is preliminary in nature, and includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves; as such, there is no certainty that the PEA results will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.5 Fourth Quarter 2025 Consolidated Results

  Three months ended Years ended December 31,(in millions of US dollars) Dec. 31, 2025 Dec. 31, 2024 Sep. 30, 2025 20252024 % ChangeOPERATING STATISTICS            Total production including discontinued operations (GEO) 65,130 116,358 72,462 317,001 455,958 (30%)Production from continuing operations (GEO) 65,130 75,562 72,462 279,207 292,169 (4%)Cash cost continuing ops($/oz GEO) (1)(2) 971 918 942 928 855 9%Cash cost ($/oz GEO) (1)(2) 971 1,015 942 944 987 (4%)AISC continuing ops($/oz GEO) (1)(2)(3) 2,054 1,842 1,987 1,933 1,634 18%AISC including discontinued ops($/oz GEO) (1)(2)(3) 2,054 1,772 1,987 1,870 1,640 14%FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS            Sales 270.2 195.2 251.4 947.1 677.2 40%Attributable net income from continuing operations 68.1 14.7 123.6 269.7 84.5 219%Attributable earnings per share from continuing operations - basic 0.22 0.05 0.40 0.88 0.27 226%Adjusted attributable net income from continuing operations (1) 71.3 19.4 51.0 203.1 77.5 162%Adjusted attributable net income from continuing operations earnings per share 0.23 0.06 0.17 0.66 0.25 164%Adjusted EBITDA (1) 157.2 94.9 130.8 514.0 331.1 55%CASH FLOW AND CAPEX            Net cash provided by operating activities - continuing operations 162.3 99.2 111.3 455.4 235.7 93%Free cash flow from ongoing operations (1) 132.3 51.1 73.4 330.0 102.6 222%Capital expenditures (4)            Sustaining 23.9 41.0 31.2 109.0 122.5 (11%)Sustaining leases 6.6 4.6 6.5 24.0 15.3 57%Growth capital 20.6 10.5 17.4 69.0 38.6 79%                     Dec. 31, 2025 Dec. 31, 2024 % ChangeCash and cash equivalents and short-term investments 554.0 231.3 140%Net liquidity position (excluding letters of credit)       704.0 381.3 85%Shareholder's equity attributable to Fortuna shareholders       1,677.0 1,403.9 19%             (1) Refer to Non-IFRS Financial Measures section at the end of this news release and to the MD&A accompanying the Company’s financial statements filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca for a description of the calculation of these measures.(2) Gold equivalent was calculated using the realized prices for gold of $3,452/oz Au, $40.2/oz Ag, $1,962/t Pb and $2,864/t Zn for Year 2025. Gold equivalent was calculated using the realized prices for gold of $2,404/oz Au, $27.9/oz Ag, $2,072/t Pb and $2,786/t Zn for Year 2024.(3) Year to date 2025 AISC reflects production and costs for Yaramoko from January 1 to April 14, 2025, being the date that the Company agreed to the assumed handover of operations to the purchaser.(4) Capital expenditures are presented on a cash basis(5) Refer to the table on page 30 of this news release for a summary of the key assumptions, operational parameters and economic results and values from the PEAFigures may not add due to roundingContribution from discontinued operations, the Yaramoko and San Jose mines which were disposed of in the second quarter of 2025, have been removed where applicable   Fourth Quarter 2025 Results

Q4 2025 vs Q3 2025

Cash cost per ounce and AISC
Cash cost per GEO sold from continuing operations was $971 in Q4 2025, representing a marginal increase from $942 in Q3 2025.

All-in sustaining costs per GEO from continuing operations was $2,054 in Q4 2025 representing a $67 increase from the $1,987 recorded in Q3 2025. The rise was primarily driven by lower ounces sold at Lindero and higher royalties of $55, partially offset by lower AISC at Séguéla resulting from a decrease in strip ratio quarter over quarter.

Attributable Net Income and Adjusted Net Income
Attributable net income from continuing operations for the period was $68.1 million in Q4 2025, compared to $123.6 million in Q3 2025. Net income in Q3 2025 included the reversal of an impairment charge of $52.7 million and the reversal of a previous write-down of $16.7 million of low-grade stockpiles at Lindero as a result of an increase in medium and long-term gold price assumptions.

After adjusting for impairment reversals and other non-recurring items, adjusted attributable net income was $71.3 million or $0.23 per share compared to $51.0 million or $0.17 per share in Q3 2025. The increase was primarily driven by higher realized gold prices, partially offset by lower gold sales volume, and a modestly higher effective tax rate. The realized gold price in Q4 2025 was $4,166 per ounce compared to $3,467 in Q3 2025. Lower gold sales were mainly attributable to lower production at Lindero related to a 12-day stoppage of the HPGR tertiary crusher in December.

Foreign Exchange
In Q4 2025, the Company recorded a foreign exchange loss of $2.9 million compared to a loss of $7.4 million in Q3 2025.

For the full year, the Company recorded a foreign exchange loss of $7.8 million, comprised of a $13.8 million realized loss and a $6.0 million unrealized gain. The foreign exchange realized loss was primarily related to the Company’s Argentine operations, where the peso devalued 41% during 2025. Of the realized loss, over $6.0 million relates to cash accumulated in-country in the first half of 2025; however, this loss was fully offset by interest, investment, and derivative gains throughout the year. In early Q3 2025 the Company was able to restart the repatriation of funds from Argentina, allowing local cash balances to be minimized. Foreign exchange losses of $3.4 million were incurred as part of the cost of repatriations during the year through the "Blue-Chip Swap Market”.

Cash Flow
Net cash generated by operations before changes in working capital totaled $147.6 million or $0.48 per share. After adjusting for working capital, net cash generated by operations for the quarter was $162.3 million compared to $111.3 million in Q3 2025. This increase was driven by higher sales, lower income tax payments, and a favorable swing in working capital, which contributed $14.8 million in Q4 compared to an outflow of $2.6 million in the prior quarter. Income taxes paid decreased to $20.8 million in Q4 2025 (including $14.4 million of withholding taxes from fund repatriation), down from $34.7 million in Q3 2025. The Q3 figure included $13.6 million in withholding taxes paid related to the repatriation of funds from Argentina and Côte d’Ivoire.

Free cash flow from ongoing operations in Q4 2025 was $132.3 million, an increase of $58.9 million compared to $73.4 million in Q3 2025 reflecting higher cash from operating activities and a reduction in sustaining capital expenditures from $31.2 million in the prior quarter to $23.9 million.

In Q4 2025, the Company invested $20.6 million in non-sustaining capital expenditures, comprising of $10.7 million in mine site exploration and other items, and $10.1 million at the Diamba Sud project.

Q4 2025 vs Q4 2024

Cash cost per ounce and AISC
Consolidated cash cost per GEO increased to $971 in Q4 2025, representing a $53 increase compared to $918 recorded in Q4 2024. The increase was mainly due to higher stripping ratios at Séguéla and Lindero, as per the mine plan.

All-in sustaining costs per gold equivalent ounce from continuing operations increased $212 to $2,054 in Q4 2025 from $1,842 in Q4 2024. This increase primarily resulted from higher royalties of $139, the impact of higher gold prices on the GEO calculation at Caylloma of $74, and $77 related to higher share-based compensation. This was partially offset by a decrease in AISC at Lindero explained by lower capital expenditures in 2025.

Attributable Net Income and Adjusted Net Income
Attributable net income from continuing operations was $68.1 million, or $0.22 per share, compared to $11.4 million, or $0.05 per share, in Q4 2024.

After adjusting for reversals of impairments and stockpile write-downs and other non-recurring items, adjusted attributable net income from continuing operations was $71.3 million or $0.23 per share compared to $19.4 million or $0.06 per share in Q4 2024. The increase was primarily due to higher realized gold prices, which averaged $4,166 per ounce in Q4 2025 compared to $2,659 per ounce in Q4 2024. This was partially offset by lower production and higher share-based compensation expense of $6.9 million compared to $1.6 million in Q4 2024.

Depreciation and Depletion
Depreciation and depletion decreased by $2.3 million to $44.9 million compared to $47.2 million Q4 2024. Despite the lower expense, depletion per ounce increased by $60. This was primarily due to higher depletion rates at Lindero following the impairment reversal of $52.7 million recorded in Q3 2025. This increase was partially offset by lower depletion per ounce at Seguela, which benefitted from the addition of low discovery-cost ounces.

Depreciation and depletion in the period included $16.2 million (FY 2025: $71.4 million) related to the purchase price allocation from the 2021 Roxgold acquisition.

Cash Flow
Net cash generated by operations for the quarter was $162.3 million compared to $99.2 million in Q4 2024. The increase was primarily driven by higher gold prices and favourable changes in working capital in Q4 2025 compared to Q4 2024.

Free cash flow from ongoing operations in Q4 2025 was $132.3 million, compared to $51.1 million reported in Q4 2024. The increase was mainly due to higher prices as discussed above, and lower sustaining capital expenditures of $17.1 million year over year.

Séguéla Mine, Côte d’Ivoire

  Three months ended December 31,  Years ended December 31,  2025  2024  2025  2024Mine production           Tonnes milled 410,014  430,117  1,718,973  1,561,800Average tonnes crushed per day 4,506  4,727  4,709  4,279            Gold           Grade (g/t) 3.16  2.95  2.98  2.95Recovery (%) 92  92  92  93Production (oz) 36,942  35,244  152,426  137,781Metal sold (oz) 36,998  36,384  152,384  137,753Realized price ($/oz) 4,162  2,658  3,450  2,399            Unit costs           Cash cost ($/oz Au) (1) 710  653  679  584All-in sustaining cash cost ($/oz Au) (1) 1,576  1,376  1,560  1,153            Capital expenditures ($000's) (2)           Sustaining 9,053  14,049  57,085  35,184Sustaining leases 4,070  3,347  16,463  10,381Growth capital 6,870  5,021  29,509  19,458            (1) Cash cost and All-in sustaining cash cost are non-IFRS financial measures. Refer to Non-IFRS Financial Measures.(2) Capital expenditures are presented on a cash basis.  Quarterly Operating and Financial Highlights

During the fourth quarter of 2025, mine production totaled 340,464 tonnes of ore, averaging 3.71 g/t Au, and containing an estimated 40,614 ounces of gold from the Antenna, Ancien, and Koula pits. Ore tonnes mined were lower than tonnes milled during the quarter, in line with the mine plan and the strategy to reduce surface stockpiles. A total of 3,920,293 tonnes of waste was moved during the period, resulting in a strip ratio of 11.5:1.

In the fourth quarter of 2025, Séguéla processed 410,014 tonnes of ore, producing 36,942 ounces of gold, at an average head grade of 3.16 g/t Au, a 5% decrease in tonnes of ore and 7% increase in average head grade, compared to the same period of the previous year. Lower tonnes milled during the quarter were primarily due to downtime caused by a failure of the SAG mill motor cooling system in October 2025 and other planned maintenance activities.

Gold production in 2025 totaled 152,426 ounces, above the upper end of the annual guidance range. An 11% increase in ounces of gold produced during the year was mainly due to the realization of throughput optimization projects through 2024 increasing ore processed, and a 19-day loss of time in 2024 as a result of power shedding from the national grid supplier.

Cash cost per gold ounce sold was $710 for the fourth quarter and $679 for the full year of 2025, compared to $653 for the fourth quarter and $584 for the full year of 2024. Cash costs were higher due to an increase in mining costs from higher stripping requirements in line with the mine plan and higher processing costs due to an increase of onsite power generation.

All-in sustaining cash cost per gold ounce sold was $1,576 for the fourth quarter of 2025 and $1,560 for the full year of 2025, compared to $1,376 for the fourth quarter and $1,153 for the full year of 2024. The increase for the quarter and for the year was primarily a result of higher cash cost per ounce sold, higher sustaining capital from capitalized stripping and higher royalties due to higher gold prices and a 2% increase in the royalty rate effective January 10, 2025.

The site finished the year in line with the AISC guidance range of $1,500 to $1,600 per ounce.

Lindero Mine, Argentina

  Three months ended December 31,  Years ended December 31,  2025  2024  2025  2024Mine production           Tonnes placed on the leach pad 1,191,030  1,757,290  6,471,573  6,367,505            Gold           Grade (g/t) 0.63  0.60  0.58  0.62Production (oz) 19,201  26,806  87,489  97,287Metal sold (oz) 19,062  26,840  86,495  96,726Realized price ($/oz) 4,173  2,659  3,451  2,411            Unit costs           Cash cost ($/oz Au) (1) 1,117  1,063  1,132  1,051All-in sustaining cash cost ($/oz Au) (1) 1,639  1,873  1,716  1,793            Capital expenditures ($000's) (2)           Sustaining 5,625  19,240  36,496  65,876Sustaining leases 1,519  629  4,171  2,400Growth capital 2,581  1,448  5,889  2,0161 Cash cost and All-in sustaining cash cost are non-IFRS financial measures; refer to non-IFRS financial measures section at the end of this news release and to the MD&A accompanying the Company’s financial statements filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca for a description of the calculation of these measures.2 Capital expenditures are presented on a cash basis.  Quarterly Operating and Financial Highlights

In the fourth quarter of 2025, a total of 1,191,030 tonnes of ore were placed on the heap leach pad, with an average gold grade of 0.63 g/t, containing an estimated 24,040 ounces of gold. Ore mined was 1.41 million tonnes, with a stripping ratio of 1.5:1.

Lindero’s gold production for the quarter was 19,201 ounces compared to 26,806 ounces in the previous period. Lindero experienced unplanned downtime of the primary crusher in late September. The primary crusher was returned to full service on December 19, 2025. During the downtime period, Management implemented several mitigation measures, including the use of a portable jaw crusher and direct run-of-mine ore screening, which offset the impact of the primary crusher interruption.

On December 8, 2025, the HPGR tertiary crusher experienced abnormal vibration originating from one of its two cardan shafts, resulting in a 12-day full stoppage. A spare cardan shaft was installed, and the HPGR circuit was restarted on December 20, 2025. The production loss associated with the HPGR repair could not be mitigated. Consequently, gold production for December, and cumulative production for the fourth quarter, were below Management’s plan, resulting in Lindero not achieving its annual production guidance. See Fortuna news release dated January 15, 2026, which is available under the Company’s profile at www.sedarplus.ca.

Following an engineering assessment of the primary crusher and its supporting foundations, Management has approved a planned 30-day replacement of the steel foundations starting in March 2026, at an estimated capital cost of $2.2 million. Mining operations will continue ahead of the scheduled work, with ore being stockpiled to support uninterrupted stacking on the leach pad during the foundation replacement period.

Lindero produced a total of 87,489 ounces of gold in 2025, 10% lower compared to 2024, mainly as a result of the twelve day full stoppage described above.

The cash cost per ounce of gold for the quarter was $1,117 compared to $1,063 in the same period of 2024. For the year ended December 31, 2025, the cash cost per ounce was $1,132, an increase from $1,051 in 2024. The increase in cash costs for both the quarter and the full year was primarily driven by lower production volumes.

AISC per gold ounce sold decreased in both Q4 2025 and the full year 2025, dropping to $1,639 and $1,716, respectively (Q4 2024: $1,873; full year 2024: $1,793). The decrease in both periods was primarily driven by lower sustaining capital expenditures as the leach pad expansion was under construction in the comparable periods and lower capitalized stripping. These cost reductions were partially offset by the lower ounces sold and a reduction in gains from cross-border Argentine Peso bond trades. (2025: $nil in Q4 and $1.3 million for the year; compared to 2024: $1.4 million in Q4 and $9.7 million for the year).

The site finished the year within AISC guidance which was from $1,600 to $1,770 per ounce.

Caylloma Mine, Peru

  Three months ended December 31,  Years ended December 31,  2025  2024  2025  2024Mine production           Tonnes milled 139,977  139,761  555,649  551,430Average tonnes milled per day 1,556  1,553  1,556  1,549            Silver           Grade (g/t) 65  67  65  80Recovery (%) 85  83  83  83Production (oz) 248,882  249,238  966,108  1,176,543Metal sold (oz) 249,255  247,441  985,494  1,179,260Realized price ($/oz) 55.99  31.27  40.22  27.88            Lead           Grade (%) 2.95  3.36  3.10  3.57Recovery (%) 93  92  91  91Production (000's lbs) 8,444  9,500  34,696  39,555Metal sold (000's lbs) 8,465  9,198  35,475  39,378Realized price ($/lb) 0.89  0.91  0.89  0.94            Zinc           Grade (%) 4.32  4.94  4.55  4.71Recovery (%) 91  91  91  91Production (000's lbs) 12,150  13,874  50,761  51,906Metal sold (000's lbs) 12,083  13,932  50,451  52,518Realized price ($/lb) 1.44  1.38  1.30  1.26            Unit costs           Cash cost ($/oz Ag Eq) (1,2) 23.74  16.53  17.38  14.12All-in sustaining cash cost ($/oz Ag Eq) (1,2) 46.27  28.10  27.46  21.72            Capital expenditures ($000's) (3)           Sustaining 9,198  7,715  15,459  21,403Sustaining leases 1,020  623  3,337  2,494Growth capital 1,455  –  2,712  –1 Cash cost per ounce of silver equivalent and All-in sustaining cash cost per ounce of silver equivalent are calculated using realized metal prices for each period respectively.2 Cash cost per ounce of silver equivalent, and all-in sustaining cash cost per ounce of silver equivalent are non-IFRS financial measures, refer to non-IFRS financial measures section at the end of this news release and to the MD&A accompanying the Company’s financial statements filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca for a description of the calculation of these measures.3 Capital expenditures are presented on a cash basis.  Quarterly Operating and Financial Highlights

In the fourth quarter of 2025, the Caylloma Mine produced 248,882 ounces of silver at an average head grade of 65 g/t, comparable to the same period of 2024.

Lead and zinc production for the quarter was 8.4 million pounds and 12.2 million pounds, respectively. Head grades averaged 2.95% Pb and 4.32% Zn, a 12% and 13% decrease, respectively, when compared to the same quarter in 2024. Production was lower due to lower head grades and was in line with the mine plan.

Full year silver production of 966,108 ounces was in line with guidance of 900,000 to 1,000,000 ounces. Lead and zinc production exceeded guidance of 29 to 32 million pounds of lead and 45 to 49 million pounds of zinc.

The cash cost per silver equivalent ounce sold in the fourth quarter of 2025 was $23.74 and $17.38 for the full year of 2025, compared to $16.53 in the fourth quarter of 2024 and $14.12 for the full year of 2024. The higher cost per ounce for the quarter and for the full year was primarily the result of higher realized silver prices and the impact on the calculation of silver equivalent ounces sold and lower silver production.

The all-in sustaining cash cost per ounce of payable silver equivalent in the fourth quarter of 2025 increased 65% to $46.27 compared to $28.10 for the same period in 2024. The all-in sustaining cash cost per ounce of payable silver equivalent in 2025 increased 26% to $27.46 compared to $21.72 for the same period in 2024. The increase for the quarter and for the full year was the result of higher cash costs per ounce and lower silver equivalent ounces due to higher silver prices. For the full year, the increase in silver prices had a $6.40 per ounce impact on AISC.

AISC guidance for the year was $21.7 to $24.7 per ounce based on a silver price of $30/oz. AISC for the year exceeded guidance due to elevated silver prices lowering the silver equivalent production from base metals as production costs were in line with plan for the year.

Conference Call and Webcast

A conference call to discuss the financial and operational results will be held on Thursday, February 19, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Pacific time | 12:00 p.m. Eastern time. Hosting the call will be Jorge A. Ganoza, President and CEO, Luis D. Ganoza, Chief Financial Officer, David Whittle, Chief Operating Officer - West Africa, and Cesar Velasco, Chief Operating Officer - Latin America.

Shareholders, analysts, media and interested investors are invited to listen to the live conference call by logging onto the webcast at https://www.webcaster5.com/Webcast/Page/1696/53601 or over the phone by dialing in just prior to the starting time.

Conference call details:

Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026
Time: 9:00 a.m. Pacific time | 12:00 p.m. Eastern time

Dial in number (Toll Free): +1.888.506.0062
Dial in number (International): +1.973.528.0011
Access code: 128834

Replay number (Toll Free): +1.877.481.4010
Replay number (International): +1.919.882.2331
Replay passcode: 53601

Playback of the earnings call will be available until Thursday, March 5, 2026. Playback of the webcast will be available until Friday, February 19, 2027. In addition, a transcript of the call will be archived on the Company’s website.

About Fortuna Mining Corp.
Fortuna Mining Corp. is a Canadian precious metals mining company with three operating mines and a portfolio of exploration projects in Argentina, Côte d’Ivoire, Mexico, and Peru, as well as the Diamba Sud Gold Project in Senegal. Sustainability is at the core of our operations and stakeholder relationships. We produce gold and silver while creating long-term shared value through efficient production, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility. For more information, please visit our website at www.fortunamining.com

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD

Jorge A. Ganoza
President, CEO, and Director
Fortuna Mining Corp.

Investor Relations:

Carlos Baca | [email protected] | fortunamining.com | X | LinkedIn | YouTube | Instagram | TikTok

Fourth Quarter Unaudited and Annual Audited Income Statement and Cash Flow

Income Statement

  Three months ended December 31,  Years ended December 31,  2025
$  2024 (1)
$  2025
$  2024 (1)
$Sales 270,241   195,217   947,059   677,243 Cost of sales 121,844   126,204   480,161   443,882 Mine operating income 148,397   69,013   466,898   233,361             General and administration 25,961   17,532   97,740   68,087 Foreign exchange loss 2,934   4,537   7,784   7,557 Reversal of impairment of mineral properties, plant and equipment –   –   (52,745)  – Write-off of mineral properties 3,041   –   5,038   – Other expenses 2,333   1,207   690   1,570   34,269   23,276   58,507   77,214             Operating income 114,128   45,737   408,391   156,147             Investment gains 56   1,405   3,364   9,716 Interest and finance costs, net (2,656)  (5,768)  (12,278)  (24,129)Gain on derivatives –   –   698   –   (2,600)  (4,363)  (8,216)  (14,413)            Income before income taxes 111,528   41,374   400,175   141,734             Income taxes           Current income tax expense 43,989   23,995   125,095   76,957 Deferred income tax recovery (6,449)  1,093   (13,697)  (25,541)  37,540   25,088   111,398   51,416 Net income from continuing operations 73,988   16,286   288,777   90,318             Net income from discontinued operations, net of tax –   (1,205)  22,287   51,588 Net income 73,988   15,081   311,064   141,906             Net income from continuing operations attributable to:           Fortuna shareholders 68,062   14,719   269,714   84,493 Non-controlling interests 5,926   1,567   19,063   5,825   73,988   16,286   288,777   90,318 Net income attributable to:           Fortuna shareholders 68,062   11,344   287,469   128,735 Non-controlling interests 5,926   3,737   23,595   13,171   73,988   15,081   311,064   141,906             Earnings per share from continuing operations attributable to Fortuna shareholders           Basic 0.22   0.05   0.88   0.27 Diluted 0.21   0.05   0.85   0.27             Earnings per share attributable to Fortuna shareholders           Basic 0.22   0.04   0.94   0.42 Diluted 0.21   0.04   0.90   0.41             Weighted average number of common shares outstanding (000's)           Basic 306,910   310,380   306,862   308,885 Diluted 335,079   312,435   334,896   310,747                  Statement of Cash Flow

  Three months ended December 31,  Years ended December 31,  2025
$  2024
$  2025
$  2024
$            OPERATING ACTIVITIES           Net income from continuing operations 73,988   16,286   288,777   90,318 Items not involving cash:           Depletion and depreciation 44,850   47,175   191,019   175,516 Accretion expense 2,077   1,738   7,827   5,921 Income taxes 37,540   25,088   111,398   51,416 Interest expense, net 600   3,914   4,677   17,561 Share-based payments, net of cash settlements 6,782   1,468   23,757   8,012 Reversal of impairment of mineral properties, plant and equipment –   –   (52,745)  – Inventory net realizable value adjustments –   4,693   (16,651)  4,693 Write-off of mineral properties 3,041   –   5,038   – Unrealized foreign exchange gains (978)  3,747   (5,857)  (1,157)Investment gains (54)  (1,406)  (3,364)  (9,716)Other 386   228   (1,596)  488 Changes in working capital 14,772   3,874   (15)  (57,035)Cash provided by operating activities 183,004   106,805   552,265   286,017 Income taxes paid (20,849)  (4,893)  (101,269)  (38,953)Interest paid (4,150)  (4,027)  (9,504)  (15,052)Interest received 4,315   1,329   13,874   3,684 Net cash provided by operating activities - continuing operations 162,320   99,214   455,366   235,696 Net cash provided by operating activities - discontinued operations –   51,104   11,984   129,981             INVESTING ACTIVITIES           Investments in equity securities –   –   (6,110)  – Additions to mineral properties and property, plant and equipment (44,488)  (51,533)  (178,004)  (161,080)Purchases of investments –   (10,284)  (18,804)  (35,857)Proceeds from sale of marketable securities and investment maturities 54   11,690   22,839   45,573 Receipts (deposits) on long-term assets (40)  379   3,497   (1,769)Other investing activities 10,000   (265)  14,768   (472)Cash used in investing activities - continuing operations (34,474)  (50,013)  (161,814)  (153,605)Cash provided by (used in) investing activities - discontinued operations –   (10,278)  71,680   (40,835)            FINANCING ACTIVITIES           Transaction costs on credit facility –   (1,963)  (107)  (1,963)Repayment of 2019 Convertible Debentures –   –   –   (9,649)Proceeds from credit facility –   –   –   68,000 Repayment of credit facility –   –   –   (233,000)Convertible notes issued –   –   –   172,500 Cost of financing - 2024 Convertible Notes –   (10)  –   (6,488)Repurchase of common shares (6,102)  (30,593)  (10,267)  (34,128)Payments of lease obligations (6,677)  –   (24,374)  (15,773)Dividend payment to non-controlling interests –   (4,720)  (12,978)  – Cash used in financing activities - continuing operations (12,779)  (37,286)  (47,726)  (60,501)Cash used in financing activities - discontinued operations –   (1,171)  (12,879)  (5,634)            Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents 638   (793)  6,046   (1,922)Increase in cash and cash equivalents during the year - continuing operations 115,705   11,122   251,872   19,668 Increase in cash and cash equivalents during the year - discontinued operations –   39,655   70,785   83,512             Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of the period 438,280   180,551   231,328   128,148 Cash and cash equivalents, end of the year 553,985   231,328   553,985   231,328             Cash and cash equivalents consist of:           Cash 405,559   184,840   405,559   184,840 Cash equivalents 148,426   46,488   148,426   46,488 Cash and cash equivalents, end of the year 553,985   231,328   553,985   231,328                  Qualified Person

Eric Chapman, Senior Vice President of Technical Services, is a Professional Geoscientist of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia (Registration Number 36328), and is the Company’s Qualified Person (as defined by National Instrument 43-101). Mr. Chapman has reviewed and approved the scientific and technical information contained in this news release and has verified the underlying data.

Non-IFRS Financial Measures

The Company has disclosed certain financial measures and ratios in this news release which are not defined under the International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”), as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, and are not disclosed in the Company's financial statements, including but not limited to: all-in costs; cash cost per ounce of gold sold; all-in sustaining costs; all-in sustaining cash cost per ounce of gold sold; all-in sustaining cash cost per ounce of gold equivalent sold; all-in cash cost per ounce of gold sold; production cash cost per ounce of gold equivalent; cash cost per payable ounce of silver equivalent sold; all-in sustaining cash cost per payable ounce of silver equivalent sold; all-in cash cost per payable ounce of silver equivalent sold; sustaining capital; growth capital; free cash flow from ongoing operations; adjusted net income; adjusted attributable net income; adjusted EBITDA, adjusted EBITDA margin and working capital.

These non-IFRS financial measures and non-IFRS ratios are widely reported in the mining industry as benchmarks for performance and are used by management to monitor and evaluate the Company's operating performance and ability to generate cash. The Company believes that, in addition to financial measures and ratios prepared in accordance with IFRS, certain investors use these non-IFRS financial measures and ratios to evaluate the Company’s performance. However, the measures do not have a standardized meaning under IFRS and may not be comparable to similar financial measures disclosed by other companies. Accordingly, non-IFRS financial measures and non-IFRS ratios should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures and ratios of the Company’s performance prepared in accordance with IFRS.

To facilitate a better understanding of these measures and ratios as calculated by the Company, descriptions are provided below. In addition see “Non-IFRS Financial Measures” in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis for the year ended December 31, 2025 (“2025 MDA”), which section is incorporated by reference in this news release, for additional information regarding each non-IFRS financial measure and non-IFRS ratio disclosed in this news release, including an explanation of their composition; an explanation of how such measures and ratios provide useful information to an investor. The 2025 MD&A may be accessed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov/edgar under the Company’s profile.

The Company has calculated these measures consistently for all periods presented with the exception of the following:

The calculation of All-in Sustaining Costs was adjusted in Q4 2024 to include blue-chip swaps in Argentina. Please refer to pages 28 and 29 of the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis for the year ended December 31, 2024 for details of the change.The calculations of Adjusted Net Income and Adjusted Attributable Net Income were revised to no longer remove the income statement impact of right of use amortization and accretion and add back the right of use payments from the cash flow statement. Management elected to make this change to simplify the reconciliation from net income to adjusted net income to improve transparency and because the net impact was immaterial.Where applicable the impact of discontinued operations have been removed from the comparable figures. The method of calculation has not been changed except as described above. Reconciliation of Debt to total net debt and net debt to adjusted EBITDA ratio for December 31, 2025

(in millions of US dollars, except Total net debt to adjusted EBITDA ratio) December 31,
20252024 Convertible Notes 172.5 Less: cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments (554.0)Total net debt (381.5)    Reconciliation of net income to attributable adjusted net income for the three months ended September 30, 2025, and for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2025 and 2024

  Three months ended Years ended December 31,Consolidated (in millions of US dollars) Dec. 31, 2025 Dec. 31, 2024 Sep. 30, 2025 2025 2024Net income attributable to shareholders 68.1  11.4  123.6  287.5  128.7 Adjustments, net of tax:            Discontinued operations –  1.2  –  (22.3) (51.6)Write off of mineral properties 2.3  –  –  4.3  – Reversal of impairment of mineral properties, plant and equipment –  –  (52.7) (52.7) – Inventory adjustment 0.5  4.7  (16.7) (16.4) 4.9 Other non-cash/non-recurring items 0.4  2.1  (3.2) 2.7  (4.5)Attributable adjusted net income 71.3  19.4  51.0  203.1  77.5 Figures may not add due to rounding                          Reconciliation of net income to adjusted EBITDA for the three months ended September 30, 2025 and the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2025 and 2024

  Three months ended Years ended December 31,Consolidated (in millions of US dollars) Dec. 31, 2025 Dec. 31, 2024 Sep. 30, 2025 2025 2024Net income 74.0  15.1  128.2  311.1  141.9 Adjustments:          Community support provision and accruals –  (0.1) –  –  (0.6)Discontinued operations –  1.2  –  (22.3) (51.6)Inventory adjustment 0.5  –  (16.7) (16.4) – Net finance items 2.7  5.7  3.2  12.3  23.5 Depreciation, depletion, and amortization 38.0  47.2  47.1  185.6  175.5 Income taxes 37.5  25.1  24.8  111.4  51.4 Reversal of impairment of mineral properties, plant and equipment –  –  (52.7) (52.7) – Investment income (0.1) –  (0.3) (2.0) – Other non-cash/non-recurring items 4.6  0.7  (2.8) (13.0) (9.0)Adjusted EBITDA 157.2  94.9  130.8  514.0  331.1 Sales 270.2  195.2  251.4  947.1  677.2 EBITDA margin 58%  49%  52%  54%  49% Figures may not add due to rounding                 Reconciliation of net cash from operating activities to free cash flow from ongoing operations for the three months ended September 30, 2025 and the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2025 and 2024

  Three months ended Years ended December 31,Consolidated (in millions of US dollars) Dec. 31, 2025 Dec. 31, 2024 Sep. 30, 2025 2025 2024Net cash provided by operating activities 162.3  150.3  111.3  467.4  365.7 Additions to mineral properties, plant and equipment (44.5) (61.9) (48.5) (179.6) (203.8)Payments of lease obligations (6.7) (5.9) (6.6) (25.7) (20.7)Free cash flow 111.1  82.5  56.2  262.1  141.2 Growth capital 20.6  10.5  17.4  69.0  38.6 Discontinued operations –  (39.5) –  (7.7) (82.4)Closure and rehabilitation provisions –  –  0.1  –  – Gain on blue chip swap investments –  1.4  –  1.3  9.7 Other adjustments 0.6  (3.8) (0.3) 5.3  (4.5)Free cash flow from ongoing operations 132.3  51.1  73.4  330.0  102.6 Figures may not add due to rounding                 Reconciliation of cost of sales to cash cost per ounce of GEO sold for the three months ended September 30, 2025 and the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2025 and 2024

Cash Cost Per Gold Equivalent Ounce Sold - Q3 2025 Lindero Séguéla Caylloma GEO Cash CostsCost of sales 28,366  70,549  19,317  118,234 Depletion, depreciation, and amortization (15,594) (31,716) (5,199) (52,509)Royalties and taxes (83) (12,154) (287) (12,524)By-product credits (1,264) -  -  (1,264)Other 16,675  -  (668) 16,007 Treatment and refining charges -  -  416  416 Cash cost applicable per gold equivalent ounce sold 28,100  26,679  13,579  68,358 Ounces of gold equivalent sold 25,157  38,803  8,601  72,561 Cash cost per ounce of gold equivalent sold ($/oz) 1,117  688  1,579  942 Gold equivalent was calculated using the realized prices for gold of $3,467/oz Au, $39.4/oz Ag, $1,962/t Pb and $2,815/t Zn for Q3 2025Figures may not add due to rounding          Cash cost per gold equivalent ounce sold - Q4 2025        (in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) Lindero Séguéla Caylloma GEO cash costsCost of sales 35,966  67,202  18,675  121,845 Depletion, depreciation, and amortization (13,003) (26,599) (3,964) (43,566)Royalties and taxes (82) (14,339) (330) (14,751)By-product credits (1,097) –  –  (1,097)Other (473) –  (832) (1,305)Treatment and refining charges –  –  1,744  1,744 Cash cost applicable per gold equivalent ounce sold 21,311  26,264  15,293  62,868 Ounces of gold equivalent sold 19,073  36,998  8,652  64,723 Cash cost per ounce of gold equivalent sold ($/oz) 1,117  710  1,768  971 Gold equivalent was calculated using the realized prices for gold of $4,167/oz Au, $56.0/oz Ag, $1,969/t Pb and $3,166/t Zn for Q4 2025.Figures may not add due to rounding.          Cash cost per gold equivalent ounce sold - Q4 2024        (in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) Lindero Séguéla Caylloma GEO cash costsCost of sales 47,380  58,956  19,866  126,202 Depletion, depreciation, and amortization (13,314) (28,828) (4,295) (46,437)Royalties and taxes (79) (6,377) (222) (6,678)By-product credits (973) –  –  (973)Other (4,704) –  (1,624) (6,328)Treatment and refining charges –  –  2,965  2,965 Cash cost applicable per gold equivalent ounce sold 28,310  23,751  16,690  68,751 Ounces of gold equivalent sold 26,629  36,384  11,882  74,896 Cash cost per ounce of gold equivalent sold ($/oz) 1,063  653  1,405  918 Gold equivalent was calculated using the realized prices for gold of $2,659/oz Au, $31.3/oz Ag, $2,009/t Pb and $3,046/t Zn for Q4 2024.Figures may not add due to rounding.  Cash cost per gold equivalent ounce sold - Year 2025 Continuing operations Discontinued ops Total(in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) Lindero Séguéla Caylloma GEO cash costs Yaramoko GEO cash costsCost of sales 137,076  269,835  73,248  480,161  68,097  548,258 Depletion, depreciation, and amortization (51,726) (118,559) (17,799) (188,084) (19,307) (207,391)Royalties and taxes (352) (47,778) (1,152) (49,282) (8,830) (58,112)By-product credits (3,853) –  –  (3,853) –  (3,853)Other 16,384  –  (2,823) 13,561  –  13,561 Treatment and refining charges –  –  2,238  2,238  –  2,238 Cash cost applicable per gold equivalent ounce sold 97,529  103,498  53,712  254,739  39,960  294,699 Ounces of gold equivalent sold 86,163  152,383  35,973  274,519  37,734  312,253 Cash cost per ounce of gold equivalent sold ($/oz) 1,132  679  1,493  928  1,059  944 Gold equivalent was calculated using the realized prices for gold of $3,452/oz Au, $40.2/oz Ag, $1,962/t Pb and $2,864/t Zn for Year 2025.Figures may not add due to rounding.  Cash cost per gold equivalent ounce sold - Year 2024        (in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) Lindero Séguéla Caylloma GEO cash costsCost of sales 159,788  211,062  73,030  443,880 Depletion, depreciation, and amortization (50,114) (107,039) (15,942) (173,095)Royalties and taxes (537) (23,622) (1,172) (25,331)By-product credits (3,232) –  –  (3,232)Other (4,930) –  (2,583) (7,513)Treatment and refining charges –  –  8,732  8,732 Cash cost applicable per gold equivalent ounce sold 100,975  80,401  62,065  243,441 Ounces of gold equivalent sold 96,059  137,753  51,005  284,817 Cash cost per ounce of gold equivalent sold ($/oz) 1,051  584  1,217  855 Gold equivalent was calculated using the realized prices for gold of $2,404/oz Au, $27.9/oz Ag, $2,072/t Pb and $2,786/t Zn for Year 2024.Figures may not add due to rounding.          Reconciliation of cost of sales to all-in sustaining cash cost per GEO sold from continuing operations for the three months ended September 30, 2025 and the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2025 and 2024

For 2025 AISC reflects production and costs for Yaramoko from January 1 to April 14, 2025, being the date that the Company agreed to the assumed handover of operations to the purchaser. AISC per ounce of gold equivalent sold for the aforementioned period has been estimated at $1,410 which is comparable to the AISC per GEO sold at Yaramoko for Q1 2025 of $1,411.

AISC Per Gold Equivalent Ounce Sold - Q3 2025 Lindero Séguéla Caylloma Corporate GEO AISCCash cost applicable per gold equivalent ounce sold 28,100 26,679 13,579 - 68,358Royalties and taxes 83 12,154 287 - 12,524Worker's participation - - 777 - 777General and administration 2,880 2,993 830 18,163 24,866Total cash costs 31,063 41,826 15,473 18,163 106,525Sustaining capital1 8,432 25,625 3,604 - 37,661Blue chips gains (investing activities)1 - - - - -All-in sustaining costs 39,495 67,451 19,077 18,163 144,186Gold equivalent ounces sold 25,157 38,803 8,601 - 72,561All-in sustaining costs per ounce 1,570 1,738 2,218 - 1,987Gold equivalent was calculated using the realized prices for gold of $3,467/oz Au, $39.4/oz Ag, $1,962/t Pb and $2,815/t Zn for Q3 2025Figures may not add due to rounding1 Presented on a cash basis            AISC per gold equivalent ounce sold - Q4 2025      (in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) Lindero Séguéla Caylloma Corporate GEO AISCCash cost applicable per gold equivalent ounce sold 21,311 26,264 15,293 – 62,868Inventory net realizable value adjustment – – – – –Royalties and taxes 82 14,339 330 – 14,751Worker's participation – – 965 – 965General and administration 2,727 4,573 3,002 13,575 23,877Total cash costs 24,120 45,176 19,590 13,575 102,461Sustaining capital (1) 7,144 13,123 10,218 – 30,485Blue chips gains (investing activities) (1) – – – – –All-in sustaining costs 31,264 58,299 29,808 13,575 132,946Gold equivalent ounces sold 19,073 36,998 8,652 – 64,723All-in sustaining costs per ounce 1,639 1,576 3,445 – 2,054Gold equivalent was calculated using the realized prices for gold of $4,167/oz Au, $56.0/oz Ag, $1,969/t Pb and $3,166/t Zn for Q4 2025.Figures may not add due to rounding.(1) Presented on a cash basis.  AISC per gold equivalent ounce sold - Q4 2024 Continuing operations Discontinued ops Total(in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) Lindero Séguéla Caylloma Corporate GEO AISC Yaramoko San Jose GEO AISCCash cost applicable per gold equivalent ounce sold 28,309  23,751 16,690 – 68,750  23,968  24,476 117,194 Inventory net realizable value adjustment –  – – – –  (829) 1,366 537 Royalties and taxes 79  6,377 222 – 6,678  5,346  801 12,825 Worker's participation –  – 1,733 – 1,733  –  – 1,733 General and administration 3,026  2,549 1,391 9,666 16,632  503  1,364 18,499 Total cash costs 31,414  32,677 20,036 9,666 93,793  28,988  28,007 150,788 Sustaining capital (1) 19,869  17,396 8,338 – 45,603  9,430  171 55,204 Blue chips gains (investing activities) (1) (1,406) – – – (1,406) –  – (1,406)All-in sustaining costs 49,877  50,073 28,374 9,666 137,990  38,418  28,178 204,586 Gold equivalent ounces sold 26,629  36,384 11,882 – 74,896  29,509  11,051 115,455 All-in sustaining costs per ounce 1,873  1,376 2,388 – 1,842  1,302  2,550 1,772 Gold equivalent was calculated using the realized prices for gold of $2,661/oz Au, $31.3/oz Ag, $2,009/t Pb, and $3,046/t Zn for Q4 2024.Figures may not add due to rounding.(1) Presented on a cash basis.  AISC per gold equivalent ounce sold - Year 2025 Continuing operations Discontinued ops Total(in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) Lindero Séguéla Caylloma Corporate GEO AISC Yaramoko GEO AISCCash cost applicable per gold equivalent ounce sold 97,529  103,498 53,712 – 254,739  39,960 294,699 Inventory net realizable value adjustment –  – – – –  – – Royalties and taxes 352  47,778 1,152 – 49,282  8,830 58,112 Worker's participation –  – 3,241 – 3,241  – 3,241 General and administration 10,663  12,828 7,959 60,287 91,737  1,602 93,339 Total cash costs 108,544  164,104 66,064 60,287 398,999  50,392 449,391 Sustaining capital (1) 40,667  73,549 18,796 – 133,012  2,813 135,825 Blue chips gains (investing activities) (1) (1,319) – – – (1,319) – (1,319)All-in sustaining costs 147,892  237,653 84,860 60,287 530,692  53,205 583,897 Gold equivalent ounces sold 86,163  152,383 35,973 – 274,519  37,734 312,253 All-in sustaining costs per ounce 1,716  1,560 2,359 – 1,933  1,410 1,870 Gold equivalent was calculated using the realized prices for gold of $3,452/oz Au, $40.2/oz Ag, $1,962/t Pb and $2,864/t Zn for Year 2025.Figures may not add due to rounding.(1) Presented on a cash basis. AISC per gold equivalent ounce sold - Year 2024 Continuing operations Discontinued ops Total(in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) Lindero Séguéla Caylloma Corporate GEO AISC Yaramoko San Jose GEO AISCCash cost applicable per gold equivalent ounce sold 100,975  80,401 62,065 – 243,441  99,858 97,235 440,534 Inventory net realizable value adjustment –  – – – –  948 1,366 2,314 Royalties and taxes 537  23,622 1,172 – 25,331  21,128 3,011 49,470 Worker's participation –  – 3,094 – 3,094  – – 3,094 General and administration 12,121  9,266 5,263 38,928 65,578  1,785 6,213 73,576 Total cash costs 113,633  113,289 71,594 38,928 337,444  123,719 107,825 568,988 Sustaining capital (1) 68,276  45,565 23,897 – 137,738  34,154 846 172,738 Blue chips gains (investing activities) (1) (9,716) – – – (9,716) – – (9,716)All-in sustaining costs 172,193  158,854 95,491 38,928 465,466  157,873 108,671 732,010 Gold equivalent ounces sold 96,059  137,753 51,005 – 284,817  116,130 45,136 446,083 All-in sustaining costs per ounce 1,793  1,153 1,872 – 1,634  1,359 2,408 1,641 Gold equivalent was calculated using the realized prices for gold of $2,401/oz Au, $28.0/oz Ag, $2,072/t Pb, and $2,786/t Zn for Year 2024.Figures may not add due to rounding.(1) Presented on a cash basis.        Reconciliation of cost of sales to cash cost per payable ounce of silver equivalent sold for the three months ended September 30, 2025 and for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2025 and 2024

Cash Cost Per Silver Equivalent Ounce Sold - Q3 2025 Caylloma Cost of sales 19,317 Depletion, depreciation, and amortization (5,199)Royalties and taxes (287)Other (668)Treatment and refining charges 416 Cash cost applicable per silver equivalent sold 13,579 Ounces of silver equivalent sold1,2 757,797 Cash cost per ounce of silver equivalent sold ($/oz) 17.92 1 Silver equivalent sold is calculated using a silver to gold ratio of 85.1:1, silver to lead ratio of 1:44.2 pounds, and silver to zinc ratio of 1:30.8 pounds.2 Silver equivalent is calculated using the realized prices for gold, silver, lead, and zinc. Refer to Financial Results - Sales and Realized PricesFigures may not add due to rounding  Cash cost per silver equivalent ounce sold - Q4 2025  (in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) CayllomaCost of sales 18,675 Depletion, depreciation, and amortization (3,964)Royalties and taxes (330)Other (832)Treatment and refining charges 1,744 Cash cost applicable per silver equivalent sold 15,293 Ounces of silver equivalent sold (1,2) 644,249 Cash cost per ounce of silver equivalent sold ($/oz) 23.74 (1) Silver equivalent sold is calculated using a silver to gold ratio of 75.9:1, silver to lead ratio of 1:62.7 pounds, and silver to zinc ratio of 1:39.0 pounds.(2) Silver equivalent is calculated using the realized prices for gold, silver, lead, and zinc. Refer to Financial Results - Sales and Realized Prices.Figures may not add due to rounding.  Cash cost per silver equivalent ounce sold - Q4 2024  (in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) CayllomaCost of sales 19,866 Depletion, depreciation, and amortization (4,295)Royalties and taxes (222)Other (1,624)Treatment and refining charges 2,965 Cash cost applicable per silver equivalent sold 16,690 Ounces of silver equivalent sold (1,2) 1,009,804 Cash cost per ounce of silver equivalent sold ($/oz) 16.53 (1) Silver equivalent sold is calculated using a silver to gold ratio of 0.0:1, silver to lead ratio of 1:34.3 pounds, and silver to zinc ratio of 1:22.6 pounds.(2) Silver equivalent is calculated using the realized prices for gold, silver, lead, and zinc. Refer to Financial Results - Sales and Realized Prices.Figures have been restated to remove Right of Use.Figures may not add due to rounding.    Cash cost per silver equivalent ounce sold - Year 2025  (in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) CayllomaCost of sales 73,248 Depletion, depreciation, and amortization (17,799)Royalties and taxes (1,152)Other (2,823)Treatment and refining charges 2,238 Cash cost applicable per silver equivalent sold 53,712 Ounces of silver equivalent sold (1,2) 3,090,518 Cash cost per ounce of silver equivalent sold ($/oz) 17.38 (1) Silver equivalent sold is calculated using a silver to gold ratio of 98.3:1, silver to lead ratio of 1:45.2 pounds, and silver to zinc ratio of 1:31.0 pounds.(2) Silver equivalent is calculated using the realized prices for gold, silver, lead, and zinc. Refer to Financial Results - Sales and Realized Prices.Figures may not add due to rounding.  Cash cost per silver equivalent ounce sold - Year 2024  (in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) CayllomaCost of sales 73,030 Depletion, depreciation, and amortization (15,942)Royalties and taxes (1,172)Other (2,583)Treatment and refining charges 8,732 Cash cost applicable per silver equivalent sold 62,065 Ounces of silver equivalent sold (1,2) 4,396,445 Cash cost per ounce of silver equivalent sold ($/oz) 14.12 (1) Silver equivalent sold is calculated using a silver to gold ratio of 80.1:1, silver to lead ratio of 1:29.7 pounds, and silver to zinc ratio of 1:22.1 pounds.(2) Silver equivalent is calculated using the realized prices for gold, silver, lead, and zinc. Refer to Financial Results - Sales and Realized Prices.Figures have been restated to remove Right of Use.Figures may not add due to rounding.    Reconciliation of all-in sustaining cash cost and all-in cash cost per payable ounce of silver equivalent sold for the three months ended September 30, 2025 and for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2025 and 2024

AISC Per Silver Equivalent Ounce Sold - Q3 2025 CayllomaCash cost applicable per silver equivalent ounce sold 13,579Royalties and taxes 287Worker's participation 777General and administration 830Total cash costs 15,473Sustaining capital3 3,604All-in sustaining costs 19,077Silver equivalent ounces sold1,2 757,797All-in sustaining costs per ounce 25.171 Silver equivalent sold is calculated using a silver to gold ratio of 85.1:1, silver to lead ratio of 1:44.2 pounds, and silver to zinc ratio of 1:30.8 pounds.2 Silver equivalent is calculated using the realized prices for gold, silver, lead, and zinc. Refer to Financial Results - Sales and Realized Prices3 Presented on a cash basis    AISC per silver equivalent ounce sold - Q4 2025  (in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) CayllomaCash cost applicable per silver equivalent ounce sold 15,293Royalties and taxes 330Worker's participation 965General and administration 3,002Total cash costs 19,590Sustaining capital (3) 10,218All-in sustaining costs 29,808Silver equivalent ounces sold (1,2) 644,249All-in sustaining costs per ounce 46.27(1) Silver equivalent sold is calculated using a silver to gold ratio of 75.9:1, silver to lead ratio of 1:62.7 pounds, and silver to zinc ratio of 1:39.0 pounds.(2) Silver equivalent is calculated using the realized prices for gold, silver, lead, and zinc. Refer to Financial Results - Sales and Realized Prices.(3) Presented on a cash basis.    AISC per silver equivalent ounce sold - Q4 2024  (in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) CayllomaCash cost applicable per silver equivalent ounce sold 16,690Royalties and taxes 222Worker's participation 1,733General and administration 1,391Total cash costs 20,036Sustaining capital (3) 8,338All-in sustaining costs 28,374Silver equivalent ounces sold (1,2) 1,009,804All-in sustaining costs per ounce 28.10(1) Silver equivalent sold is calculated using a silver to gold ratio of 0.0:1, silver to lead ratio of 1:34.3 pounds, and silver to zinc ratio of 1:22.6 pounds.(2) Silver equivalent is calculated using the realized prices for gold, silver, lead, and zinc. Refer to Financial Results - Sales and Realized Prices.(3) Presented on a cash basis.    AISC per silver equivalent ounce sold - Year 2025  (in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) CayllomaCash cost applicable per silver equivalent ounce sold 53,712Royalties and taxes 1,152Worker's participation 3,241General and administration 7,959Total cash costs 66,064Sustaining capital (3) 18,796All-in sustaining costs 84,860Silver equivalent ounces sold (1,2) 3,090,518All-in sustaining costs per ounce 27.46(1) Silver equivalent sold is calculated using a silver to gold ratio of 98.3:1, silver to lead ratio of 1:45.2 pounds, and silver to zinc ratio of 1:31.0 pounds.(2) Silver equivalent is calculated using the realized prices for gold, silver, lead, and zinc. Refer to Financial Results - Sales and Realized Prices.(3) Presented on a cash basis.    AISC per silver equivalent ounce sold - Year 2024  (in thousands of US dollars, except ounces sold) CayllomaCash cost applicable per silver equivalent ounce sold 62,065Royalties and taxes 1,172Worker's participation 3,094General and administration 5,263Total cash costs 71,594Sustaining capital (3) 23,897All-in sustaining costs 95,491Silver equivalent ounces sold (1,2) 4,396,445All-in sustaining costs per ounce 21.72(1) Silver equivalent sold is calculated using a silver to gold ratio of 80.1:1, silver to lead ratio of 1:29.7 pounds, and silver to zinc ratio of 1:22.1 pounds.(2) Silver equivalent is calculated using the realized prices for gold, silver, lead, and zinc. Refer to Financial Results - Sales and Realized Prices.(3) Presented on a cash basis.    Additional information regarding the Company’s financial results and ongoing activities is available in the audited consolidated financial statements for years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 and accompanying 2025 MD&A. These documents can be accessed on Fortuna’s website at www.fortunamining.com, on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov/edgarwww.sec.gov/edgar.

Forward-looking Statements

This news release contains forward-looking statements which constitute "forward-looking information" within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation and "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (collectively, "Forward-looking Statements"). All statements included herein, other than statements of historical fact, are Forward-looking Statements and are subject to a variety of known and unknown risks and uncertainties which could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those reflected in the Forward-looking Statements. The Forward-looking Statements in this news release include, without limitation, statements about the Company's plans for its mines and mineral properties; expansion of mineral reserves at Séguéla extending the life of mine to over nine years; the Company’s expectations regarding the feasibility study to expand plant throughput at Séguéla; the next phase of growth at the Diamba Sud project including the amount to be allocated for the early works program, to order critical equipment and for further exploration activities; the making and timing of a construction decision at the Diamba Sud project; the Company’s expectation that the replacement of the foundations for the primary crusher at the Lindero Mine will be completed on budget within a 30 day period starting in March 2026;  the Company's business strategy, plans and outlook; the merit of the Company's mines and mineral properties; mineral resource and reserve estimates, metal recovery rates, concentrate grade and quality; changes in tax rates and tax laws, requirements for permits, anticipated approvals and other matters. Often, but not always, these Forward-looking Statements can be identified by the use of words such as "estimated", “expected”, “anticipated”, "potential", "open", "future", "assumed", "projected", "used", "detailed", "has been", "gain", "planned", "reflecting", "will", "containing", "remaining", "to be", or statements that events, "could" or "should" occur or be achieved and similar expressions, including negative variations.

The forward-looking statements in this news release also include financial outlooks and other forward-looking metrics relating to the Company and its business, including references to financial and business prospects and future results of operations, including production, and cost guidance and anticipated future financial performance. Such information, which may be considered future oriented financial information or financial outlooks within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation (collectively, “FOFI”), has been approved by management of the Company and is based on assumptions which management believes were reasonable on the date such FOFI was prepared, having regard to the industry, business, financial conditions, plans and prospects of the Company and its business and properties. These projections are provided to describe the prospective performance of the Company's business. Nevertheless, readers are cautioned that such information is highly subjective and should not be relied on as necessarily indicative of future results and that actual results may differ significantly from such projections. FOFI constitutes forward-looking statements and is subject to the same assumptions, uncertainties, risk factors and qualifications as set forth below.

Forward-looking Statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the Forward-looking Statements. Such uncertainties and factors include, among others, changes in general economic conditions and financial markets; risks associated with war or other geo-political hostilities, such as the Ukrainian – Russian and the Israel – Hamas conflicts, any of which could continue to cause a disruption in global economic activity; fluctuation in currencies and foreign exchange rates; increases in the rate of inflation; the imposition or any extension of capital controls in countries in which the Company operates; any changes in tax laws in Argentina and the other countries in which we operate; changes in the prices of key supplies; uncertainty relating to nature and climate change conditions; risks associated with climate change legislation; laws and regulations regarding the protection of the environment (including greenhouse gas emission reduction and other decarbonization requirements and the uncertainty surrounding the interpretation of omnibus Bill C-59 and the related amendments to the Competition Act (Canada); our ability to manage physical and transition risks related to climate change and successfully adapt our business strategy to a low carbon global economy; technological and operational hazards in Fortuna’s mining and mine development activities; risks related to water and power availability; risks inherent in mineral exploration; uncertainties inherent in the estimation of mineral reserves, mineral resources, and metal recoveries; changes to current estimates of mineral reserves and resources; changes to production and cost estimates; changes in the position of regulatory authorities with respect to the granting of approvals or permits; governmental and other approvals; changes in government, political unrest or instability in countries where Fortuna is active; labor relations issues; as well as those factors discussed under “Risk Factors” in the Company's Annual Information Form for the financial year ended December 31, 2024 filed with the Canadian Securities Administrators and available at www.sedarplus.ca and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Company’s Form 40-F and available at www.sec.gov/edgar. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in Forward-looking Statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended.

Forward-looking Statements contained herein are based on the assumptions, beliefs, expectations and opinions of management, including, but not limited to, the accuracy of the Company’s current mineral resource and reserve estimates; that the Company’s activities will be conducted in accordance with the Company’s public statements and stated goals; that there will be no material adverse change affecting the Company, its properties or changes to production estimates (which assume accuracy of projected ore grade, mining rates, recovery timing, and recovery rate estimates and may be impacted by unscheduled maintenance, labor and contractor availability and other operating or technical difficulties); geo-political uncertainties that may affect the Company’s production, workforce, business, operations and financial condition; the expected trends in mineral prices and currency exchange rates; that the Company will be successful in mitigating the impact of inflation on its business and operations; that all required approvals and permits will be obtained for the Company’s business and operations on acceptable terms; that there will be no significant disruptions affecting the Company's operations, the ability to meet current and future obligations and such other assumptions as set out herein. Forward-looking Statements are made as of the date hereof and the Company disclaims any obligation to update any Forward-looking Statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise, except as required by law. There can be no assurance that these Forward-looking Statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, investors should not place undue reliance on Forward-looking Statements. 

Cautionary Note to United States Investors Concerning Estimates of Reserves and Resources  

Reserve and resource estimates included in this news release have been prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects ("NI 43-101") and the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. NI 43-101 is a rule developed by the Canadian Securities Administrators that establishes standards for public disclosure by a Canadian company of scientific and technical information concerning mineral projects. Unless otherwise indicated, all mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates contained in the technical disclosure have been prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 and the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves. Canadian standards, including NI 43-101, differ significantly from the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and mineral reserve and resource information included in this news release may not be comparable to similar information disclosed by U.S. companies. 

PEA Key Highlights

The following table summarizes the key assumptions, operational parameters, economic results, and AISC values from the PEA.

MetricsUnitsResults
 Gold price$/oz2,750 Life of mineyear8.1 Total mineralized material mined1Mt17.75 Contained gold in mineralized material mined1koz932 Strip ratioWaste:mineralized material5.5:1 Throughput initial 3 years (primarily oxide)Mtpa2.5 Throughput after 3 years (primarily fresh)Mtpa2.0 Head gradeg/t Au1.63 Recoveries%90% Gold production  Total Production over LOMkoz840 Average annual production, LOMkoz106 Average annual production, first 3 yearskoz147 Per unit costs over LOM  Total mining costs$/t, mined$4.82 Processing$/t, processed$13.91 G&A$/t, processed$6.70 Cash costs1  Average operating cash costs2, LOM$/oz$1,081 Average operating cash costs2, first 3 years$/oz$759 AISC1  Average AISC2, LOM$/oz$1,238 Average AISC2, first 3 years$/oz$904 Capital costs  Initial capital expenditure$ M$283 Sustaining capital, operations + Infrastructure (includes closure costs)$ M$48 NPV5%, pre-tax (100% project basis)$M$772 Pre-tax IRR%86% NPV5%, after-tax (100% project basis)$M$563 After-tax IRR%72% Payback periodyear0.8 Annual EBITDA 2  Average EBITDA2 over LOM$ M$167 Average EBITDA2 over first 3 years$ M$277  Notes:1.The pit optimization shells used for the mining inventory were generated using a gold price of $2,300 per ounce.2.This is a non-IFRS financial measure. The definition and purpose of this non-IFRS financial measure is included in the 2025 MD&A under the heading “Non-IFRS Measures. Non-IFRS financial measures have no standardized meaning under IFRS and therefore, may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers.3.Average operating cash costs and average AISC represent costs for projected production for the LOM at the time of gold sales.4.The PEA is presented on a 100 percent project basis. However, upon the granting of the exploitation permit, the Senegalese Government will be entitled to a 10 percent free-carried interest in the Project, with the right for the State to acquire an additional contributory interest of up to 25 percent.5.The economic analysis was carried out using a discounted cash flow approach on a pre-tax and after-tax basis, based on the gold price of $2,750/oz.6.The IRR on total investment that is presented in the economic analysis was calculated assuming a 100% ownership in Diamba Sud.7.The NPV was calculated from the after-tax cash flow generated by the Project, based on a discounted rate of 5% and an effective date of October 10, 2025.8.The PEA assumes that the percentage of certain royalties and taxes payable to the State, the percentage of the investment tax credit available to the company and the percentage payable to the social development fund will be in accordance with the provisions of the Mining Convention between Boya S.A. and the State of Senegal dated April 8, 2015. There can be no assurance that such provisions will not be renegotiated by the State as part of the exploitation permit approval process.9.The PEA is preliminary in nature, and it includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and, as such, there is no certainty that the PEA results will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.   Further information regarding the PEA referenced in this news release, including details on data verification, key assumptions, parameters, opportunities, risks, and other factors, is contained in the technical report entitled “Diamba Sud Gold Project, Kédougou Region, Senegal” with an effective date of October 15, 2025, filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov/edgar under the Company’s profile on November 26, 2025.

PDF available: http://ml.globenewswire.com/Resource/Download/453116f5-a7d3-4fd9-894a-30b1cbed974b

Carvana (CVNA - Free Report)  is standing out after reporting record Q4 and full-year results yesterday evening and seeing its stock spike 3% in Wednesday’s trading session.

The e-commerce leader sold 163,522 vehicles during Q4, and nearly 600,000 vehicles total in 2025. Both marks represent new milestones and 43% year over year growth, respectively.  

Being one of the market’s top performers, Carvana stock is up a staggering 2,400% in the last three years, but is 25% from an all-time high of $486 a share, which it hit in January.

This certainly makes it a worthy topic of whether it's time to buy Carvana stock after its blowout Q4 results.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Carvana’s Stellar Q4 ResultsCarvana reported higher profit and revenue driven by strong demand for used vehicles amid broader economic pressures. Posting record Q4 sales of $5.6 billion, this was a 58% increase from $3.54 billion in the prior year quarter and comfortably topped estimates of $5.22 billion by 7%.

More astonishing, Q4 EPS of $4.22 crushed expectations of $1.13 by 273% and skyrocketed from $0.56 per share a year ago. The massive upside surprise comes as Carvana saw strong growth in every major profitability metric, including net income, operating profit, and gross profit, while seeing stronger cash flow as well.  

Notably, Carvana’s cash from operating activities jumped 617% YoY to $430 million, signaling that the earnings strength wasn’t just accounting quirks and that its business is generating real cash.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Full Year Results & Strategic GoalsRounding out fiscal 2025, Carvana’s total sales spiked 49% to a peak of $20.3 billion from $13.67 billion in 2024. Net income was up more than $1 billion to $1.9 billion. This equated to full-year EPS skyrocketing 405% to a record $8.04, versus $1.59 per share in 2024.

Other full-year highlights included record EBITDA of $2.2 billion, up more than $850 million YoY.

While Carvana didn't provide formal guidance, the company stated its most important goal for 2026 is significant growth in retail units sold and adjusted EBITDA. It’s noteworthy that Carvana did project a sequential increase in retail units sold and adjusted EBITDA in Q1.

Monitoring Carvana’s ValuationReassuringly, Carvana stock is trading at a much more reasonable 43X forward earnings multiple. Starting to trade closer to the benchmark S&P 500 and its Zacks Internet-Commerce Industry average, CVNA offers a nice discount to its median of around 68X forward earnings since becoming profitable. 

In terms of price to forward-sales, CVNA is trading roughly on par with its industry average at under 3X, a discount to the S&P 500’s 5X.  

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Bottom LineCarvana stock currently lands a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). However, after blowing away earnings expectations, a buy rating could be on the way as EPS revisions are very likely to trend higher for FY26. With CVNA growing into its lofty valuation, the pullback from its all-time high of $486 a share has become more enticing as bubble fears are starting to be quieted.

4 mins mins

Glamsterdam H1 2026: Ethereum’s next upgrade and target dateAccording to the ethereum foundation’s 2026 protocol priorities update, Glamsterdam is targeted for the first half of 2026, with work organized across three tracks: Scale, Improve UX, and Harden the L1 (the Scale track includes enshrined proposer–builder separation, gas-limit evaluations, and blob scaling) (blog.ethereum.org).

The update positions Glamsterdam as the next mainnet upgrade, with Hegota slated to follow later in the year, subject to client readiness and testing milestones. Scope remains under discussion, and inclusion of any given feature will depend on test results and security review.

Why it matters: enshrined PBS (ePBS), Block-Level Access Lists (BALs), gas limitsEnshrined PBS (ePBS) would move the proposer–builder separation into the protocol, aiming to reduce reliance on external relays and to harden censorship resistance by making block-builder markets more trust-minimized. If implemented, this could standardize MEV flows while narrowing opportunities for discretionary transaction filtering.

Block-Level Access Lists (BALs) are discussed as a way to preload needed state for a block so nodes avoid repeated disk reads, which can be a major execution bottleneck. According to Gabriel Trintinalia, a senior engineer at Consensys, this approach targets lower I/O overhead and more predictable performance for validators and full nodes.

On capacity, Gary Schulte has predicted that a gas-limit increase to 100 million is plausible in H1 2026, with a potential doubling later if ePBS lands and client performance supports it, as reported by Cointelegraph (cointelegraph.com).

Framing the intent behind these priorities, vitalik buterin has argued for renewing Ethereum’s trust-minimized ethos in the year ahead: “2026 [should] be the year Ethereum ‘takes back lost ground in terms of self-sovereignty and trustlessness,’” as reported by CryptoNews (cryptonews.com).

BingX: a trusted exchange delivering real advantages for traders at every level.

For users, there is no immediate change until Glamsterdam activates on mainnet. If ePBS ships, inclusion reliability could improve and censorship risk could decline, though realized fee effects will depend on demand and post-fork measurements.

For developers, the largest lift sits in client and engine-API updates, interoperability testing, and performance validation under higher load. Application teams could see more predictable inclusion and potential latency improvements if BALs ease execution bottlenecks.

For Ethereum L2s, L1 upgrades that expand throughput and harden neutrality may reduce pressure to centralize scaling at the edges. Rollups likely remain central, but specializations, settlement, privacy, or app-specific throughput, may become more pronounced as L1 capacity grows.

At the time of writing, Ethereum traded at $1,945.31, down 2.7% over the past day, providing neutral market context as Glamsterdam planning progresses, as reported by Meyka (meyka.com).

Risks, dependencies, and timeline to watchePBS risks: Free Option Problem, engine-API changes, client readinessResearchers have highlighted the “Free Option Problem,” where builders can opportunistically skip payloads in favor of empty blocks during volatile MEV conditions; mitigations under study include narrower decision windows and targeted penalties (arXiv.org).

Developer updates have also flagged testing bottlenecks and consensus–execution coordination as areas of uncertainty, with BALs further along than ePBS and engine-API changes still being worked through, as reported by CryptoNews.net (cryptonews.net).

Roadmap links: Fusaka before Glamsterdam; Hegota after; scope/testingFusaka precedes Glamsterdam, and slippage there could cascade into later milestones; co-executive director Tomasz K. Stańczak has stressed the need to protect that schedule to maintain roadmap confidence, as reported by The Block (theblock.co).

Given these dependencies and the depth of ePBS changes, a reduced-scope fork remains possible if testing surfaces unresolved risks, with follow-on features deferred to Hegota after sufficient validation.

FAQ about Glamsterdam upgradeWhich features are expected in Glamsterdam (ePBS, BALs, gas limit changes) and why do they matter?Developer discussions center on ePBS and BALs, plus potential gas-limit increases. They aim to harden censorship resistance, raise throughput, and improve node performance.

How could ePBS and BALs affect gas fees, throughput, and MEV/censorship risk on Ethereum?ePBS may curb censorship and streamline MEV markets; BALs can lower execution overhead, supporting throughput. Fee outcomes hinge on gas limits, demand, and measured post-fork data.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. We encourage you to do your own research before investing.

Rate this post

Journalist

Posted: February 19, 2026

XRP, a leader in international settlement rails, continued to win on the fundamentals despite price weakness. February 18 2026 did not feel ordinary. It felt charged.

XRP moved through February’s pullback, yet the structural developments refused to fade quietly. Meanwhile, real-world asset expansion on the XRPL kept accelerating in the background.

However, prices lagged while infrastructure strengthened. Therefore, the market faced an uncomfortable question: was sentiment ignoring deeper structural shifts?

Arizona advances strategic reserve naming XRP alongside BTC Arizona’s SB1649 cleared the Senate Finance Committee in a 4-2 vote on the 16th of February.

Introduced by Senator Finchem during the Fifty-seventh Legislature Second Regular Session, the bill proposed establishing a Digital Assets Strategic Reserve Fund under section 41-181 relating to the State Treasurer. It advanced with a “Do Pass” recommendation and remained in introduced status.

The legislation created a framework allowing the state to hold digital assets seized or appropriated into a managed reserve.

Notably, Ripple [XRP] was explicitly listed alongside Bitcoin, Digibyte, stablecoins, and other qualifying digital assets within the statutory definition. That inclusion was written directly into the bill’s language.

That was not symbolic noise. It formally positioned XRP beside Bitcoin in state-level reserve policy. Moreover, the proposal allowed the State Treasurer to invest and potentially loan digital assets under defined risk limitations.

The bill also outlined strict custody requirements, including qualified custodians, secure, encrypted environments, multiparty authorization structures, and regular audits. Failure to notice this shift would have been shortsighted. States rarely drafted operational custody rules unless serious consideration was already underway.

XRPL adds $354mln in 30 days XRPL’s tokenized RWA value surged by $354 million within 30 days. As a result, total RWA reached $1.874B, excluding stablecoins.

Source: X

This led to XRPL overtaking Solana’s $1.7B RWA footprint. Meanwhile, BNB Chain stood at $2.3B, leaving roughly a $400M gap.

Despite price weakness, tokenization momentum refused to slow. Therefore, infrastructure growth contradicts bearish narratives.

State adoption and RWA surge The $589 prophecy had long been mocked. However, February 18 2026 forced critics to pause.

State-level acknowledgment, accelerating RWA flows, and steady XRP ETF inflows created uncomfortable optics for doubters.

This suggested narrative alignment was forming beneath surface weakness. However, domination rhetoric without sustained capital inflows would remain a fantasy.

Final Summary Arizona’s move and XRPL’s RWA surge signaled structural momentum beyond price action. Whether $589 remained a dream or a destiny depended on sustained adoption, not memes.

Securitize's Carlos Domingo said that while real estate has proved difficult to tokenize, scalable and compliant digital property products could see widespread demand.

World Liberty Financial has announced a new tokenization initiative involving loan revenue interests in the Trump International Hotel & Resort, Maldives, in collaboration with Securitize and DarGlobal.

The project, developed by DarGlobal in partnership with The Trump Organization and slated for completion in 2030, will feature approximately 100 luxury beachfront and overwater villas.

The offering is designed to give accredited investors exposure to fixed yields and loan revenue streams derived from the resort’s performance, including income potential and future sale participation.

The announcement came during the World Liberty Forum at Mar-a-Lago on February 18. It represents the platform’s first major push into real estate tokenization, following the launch of USD1, a stablecoin that has accumulated substantial market capitalization.

“We built World Liberty Financial to open up decentralized finance to the world. With today’s announcement, we are now extending that access to tokenized real estate,” Trump stated.

Bringing fractional ownership to high-end hospitality properties has long posed challenges for blockchain-based finance. The luxury resort sector remains largely untapped by tokenization efforts, though interest in converting traditionally illiquid assets into tradeable digital securities has grown among institutional participants seeking regulatory clarity.

Securitize CEO Carlos Domingo believes properly structured and regulated tokenized offerings could attract huge global interest through initiatives like the collaboration with World Liberty.

The tokens will be issued via private placement to accredited and offshore investors under securities exemptions, deployed on public blockchains, and may support collateral use within WLFI Markets, subject to legal requirements.

Bitcoin (BTC) trades in a tight $65,000–$70,000 range on Wednesday, a structure that has held for the past two weeks.

The lower time frames show a bullish divergence, signaling fading short-term selling pressure, while futures data indicate fresh long positions opened from $66,000.

Analysts say the compression may precede a breakout attempt, with liquidity clusters below $66,000 and above $71,000 being the zones that may define the next directional move.

Bitcoin’s bullish divergence rests near a support levelOn the one-hour chart, Bitcoin is forming a descending channel similar to last week’s structure that preceded a move toward $70,000. Within this channel, a clear bullish divergence has developed in the relative strength index indicator (RSI).

A bullish divergence occurs when the price makes lower lows or equal lows while the RSI prints higher lows. This sequence suggests that selling pressure is losing strength on the shorter time frame.

A sustained break above $68,000 may confirm momentum, leading to a price rally toward the external liquidity and resistance level above $71,500. 

Bitcoin one-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingViewThe invalidation level sits below $66,000, where internal liquidity is present near the $65,000. A breakdown beneath that region invalidates the divergence setup and shifts focus to the higher-time-frame support range between $62,000 and $60,000.

Derivatives data shows aggregated open interest has climbed 3% to $15.50 billion from $15.10 billion over the past two days, even as the price drifted lower.

The aggregated funding rate has ticked higher to 0.046%, suggesting a growing long exposure from futures traders. 

Since Feb. 15, roughly $250 million in aggregated long liquidations have occurred, forcing leveraged positions to close below $67,000. These long-side sell-offs reduce excess leverage, which may stabilize price and create better conditions for an uptrend once traders re-engage in the market. 

BTC price, aggregated open interest, funding rate, and liquidations. Source: Velo dataFutures momentum and macro positioningCrypto analyst Amr Taha noted a sharp drop in Binance Bitcoin futures power 30-day change, which tracks the net change in price, funding, and open interest. The index fell to -0.18, matching levels last seen between April and May 2024.

Binance Bitcoin Futures Power 30D Change. Source: CryptoQuantTaha said that this may mark a turning point for BTC, as similar deep negative readings between April and May 2024 led to a strong rebound that pushed Bitcoin above the $100,000 level, once the index turned positive in the latter half of 2024. 

Meanwhile, crypto analyst Dom said that the spot order books show thin liquidity between $66,000 and $69,000, describing the current activity as neutral, with BTC’s price compressing ahead of a breakout attempt. 

Liquidity heatmaps shared by BTC trader Daan show dense liquidity clusters below $66,000 and above $71,000, pointing to areas where stop orders and resting positions are likely concentrated.

BTC liquidity heatmap. Source: Daan Crypto Trades/XThis article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision. While we strive to provide accurate and timely information, Cointelegraph does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information in this article. This article may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Cointelegraph will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from your reliance on this information.

SPX6900 surged 14%, breaking above $0.36 amid sustained positive pressure on price.

Bitcoin price corrected gains and tested the $66,000 support. BTC is now consolidating losses and might decline further below the $65,500 zone.

Bitcoin is struggling to recover losses and moving lower below $67,200. The price is trading below $67,200 and the 100 hourly simple moving average. There is a declining channel forming with resistance at $68,000 on the hourly chart of the BTC/USD pair (data feed from Kraken). The pair might dip again if it trades below the $66,000 and $65,500 levels. Bitcoin Price Dips Again Bitcoin price failed to remain stable above the $68,000 zone. BTC started a fresh decline and traded below the $67,500 support zone. There was a push below $67,000.

The price dipped below the 76.4% Fib retracement level of the upward move from the $65,072 swing low to the $70,935 high. Finally, the price found some support near the $66,000 zone. It is now consolidating losses and there is a declining channel forming with resistance at $68,000 on the hourly chart of the BTC/USD pair.

Bitcoin is now trading below $67,200 and the 100 hourly simple moving average. If the price remains stable above $66,000, it could attempt a fresh increase. Immediate resistance is near the $67,350 level.

Source: BTCUSD on TradingView.com The first key resistance is near the $68,000 level. A close above the $68,000 resistance might send the price further higher. In the stated case, the price could rise and test the $68,800 resistance. Any more gains might send the price toward the $69,500 level. The next barrier for the bulls could be $70,000 and $70,500.

More Losses In BTC? If Bitcoin fails to rise above the $68,000 resistance zone, it could start another decline. Immediate support is near the $66,000 level or the 83.2% Fib retracement level of the upward move from the $65,072 swing low to the $70,935 high. The first major support is near the $65,500 level.

The next support is now near the $65,000 zone. Any more losses might send the price toward the $64,200 support in the near term. The main support now sits at $63,500, below which BTC might struggle to recover in the near term.

Technical indicators:

Hourly MACD – The MACD is now gaining pace in the bearish zone.

Hourly RSI (Relative Strength Index) – The RSI for BTC/USD is now below the 50 level.

Major Support Levels – $66,000, followed by $65,000.

Major Resistance Levels – $67,350 and $68,000.

4 mins mins

Minutes: hike remains possible, not base case (3.50%–3.75%)The January 27–28, 2026 FOMC minutes kept the policy rate at 3.50%–3.75% and preserved two‑sided optionality. Officials debated whether persistent inflation might still require an upward adjustment, while emphasizing patience.

Several policymakers appeared wary of cutting too quickly, with discussion that a hike could be warranted if inflation fails to ease, according to Bloomberg. The emphasis remained on incoming data rather than a preset path.

Almost all participants favored holding rates steady at the January meeting, as reported by FXStreet. The stance reflects a desire to assess whether recent disinflation can continue without risking labor‑market stability.

Why it matters: inflation stickiness versus labor‑market risksPolicymakers are balancing sticky price pressures against softening pockets of employment. The risk‑management frame aims to avoid reigniting inflation while guarding against unnecessary labor‑market damage.

In that context, the minutes underscored conditionality: “several participants” indicated that “upward adjustments” could be considered if inflation stays above target, according to the FOMC minutes. The symmetry is intentional, signaling neither a default hike nor a rapid pivot to cuts.

Many officials want to see inflation fall further before supporting additional cuts this year, per the Associated Press. That bias helps anchor expectations and reduces the chance of a premature easing that could unmoor inflation progress.

BingX: a trusted exchange delivering real advantages for traders at every level.

The minutes preserve flexibility: a hike remains possible, but not the base case. Markets are likely to read the document as a commitment to data dependence and risk control.

Positioning has turned more cautious, with investors awaiting additional inflation and labor‑market prints to validate disinflation momentum. A higher‑for‑longer stance remains plausible if price pressures linger.

At the time of this writing, Bitcoin trades near $66,900, with elevated 30‑day volatility and a neutral 14‑day RSI. Such cross‑asset context often reflects rate‑path uncertainty rather than directional conviction.

Who stands where among FOMC officials and analystsOfficials split: several see hike risk; others favor holding or cutsOfficials remain divided on the next move. Concerns that inflation could remain stubbornly high were highlighted in coverage of the minutes, as reported by Free Malaysia Today. Others are comfortable with an extended hold while evaluating the durability of disinflation before considering cuts.

Analysts similarly split on timing, with a tilt toward later‑2026 easing if inflation cools further, as noted by Fortune. The shared theme is conditionality: policy will adjust as the data clarify the balance of risks.

Named voices: Goolsbee cautious on cuts; Bowman open to easingChicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee has urged caution on additional cuts after opposing a prior reduction, reflecting a preference to hold steady until disinflation is clearer, according to Investopedia. His remarks align with the minutes’ emphasis on evidence‑driven moves.

Fed Governor Michelle Bowman has signaled that rates may have room to fall if labor‑market fragilities emerge, as reported by The wall street Journal. Her openness to easing remains contingent on continued inflation progress and employment conditions.

FAQ about FOMC minutesWhat did the Jan. 27–28, 2026 FOMC minutes say about inflation and the risk of an upward adjustment?They kept hikes on the table if inflation proves persistent, while most favored holding steady. The committee emphasized two‑sided risk management and data dependence.

When are rate cuts most likely to begin, according to economists and the minutes?Economists generally expect cuts later in 2026, contingent on clearer disinflation and stable employment. The minutes did not pre‑commit to a timetable.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. We encourage you to do your own research before investing.

Rate this post

The latest FOMC minutes reveal that the Federal Reserve remains open to additional rate cuts if inflation continues to move toward its 2% target. However, policymakers also signaled that interest rate hikes could be considered if inflation remains elevated or accelerates again. This mixed outlook has created fresh volatility in the Bitcoin and broader crypto market.

According to the January FOMC minutes, several Federal Reserve officials stated that further rate cuts would likely be appropriate if inflation declines in line with expectations. At the same time, many participants believe it may be prudent to keep interest rates steady while evaluating incoming economic data. Some policymakers emphasized that additional cuts may not be justified until there is clearer evidence that disinflation is firmly back on track.

The Fed decided to hold rates steady at its January meeting after implementing three rate cuts last year. Nearly all participants supported the pause, citing still-elevated inflation and continued economic expansion. Notably, several officials suggested adopting a “two-sided” approach to future policy decisions, meaning rate hikes could also be on the table if inflation trends above the Fed’s target.

Recent inflation data has shown tentative signs of cooling. January CPI came in at 2.4%, boosting optimism across financial markets and helping Bitcoin rally toward $70,000 over the weekend. Investors are now closely watching the upcoming PCE inflation data, the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, for further clues on monetary policy direction.

Following the FOMC minutes release, Bitcoin price fell below the key $66,000 psychological level, trading slightly above it at the time of writing and down around 2% on the day. Market uncertainty surrounding future Federal Reserve rate decisions continues to influence crypto market sentiment. According to CME FedWatch data, there is a 90% probability that the Fed will hold rates steady at the March FOMC meeting, reinforcing expectations of a cautious, data-driven approach.

<Copyright ⓒ TokenPost, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited>

Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon has shared fresh insights into his views on Bitcoin and the evolving landscape of crypto regulation in the United States. Speaking at the World Liberty Forum, Solomon revealed that he personally owns a small amount of Bitcoin, describing himself as an “observer” of the leading cryptocurrency. He emphasized that his limited Bitcoin exposure reflects professional curiosity rather than a major investment position.

Solomon noted that digital assets represent a broader structural shift in global financial markets. He dismissed the idea that traditional banks and crypto firms are adversaries, stating that both operate within the same financial system despite policy disagreements. According to the Goldman Sachs chief, the primary barrier preventing major banks from expanding into crypto trading and custody services is regulatory uncertainty. Current rules restrict large financial institutions from directly holding or trading Bitcoin, but clearer legislation in Washington could unlock greater participation.

He also referenced the stalled crypto market structure bill in Congress, suggesting that companies unwilling to engage with U.S. lawmakers may need to reconsider their operational base. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs has expanded its crypto exposure through exchange-traded products. By the end of 2025, the bank held more than $1 billion in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust, along with $260 million in Solana and XRP ETFs. Solomon added that market-making services in Bitcoin and Ethereum could become a reality if regulations evolve.

At the same event, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Senator Bernie Moreno signaled optimism about progress on crypto legislation. Armstrong said a compromise is emerging in Congress, potentially benefiting crypto companies, banks, and consumers while positioning the United States as a global crypto hub. Stablecoin rewards remain a key debate, with some banks pushing for restrictions. However, Moreno argued that competition and stablecoin yields could ultimately benefit American consumers, expressing hope that legislation could be finalized by April.

<Copyright ⓒ TokenPost, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited>

Prefer us on Google

Several Fed officials discussed possible rate hikes, creating a hawkish backdrop months before dovish-leaning Kevin Warsh takes the chair.The clash between the Fed's inflation-first majority and Trump's rate-cut push sets up a volatile leadership transition.Bitcoin slid below $66,500 as Asian traders returned from Lunar New Year holiday, amplifying selling pressure amid geopolitical tensions.The Federal Reserve’s January meeting minutes revealed a surprisingly hawkish committee. Several officials openly discussed rate hikes. That sets the stage for a dramatic policy clash when Kevin Warsh takes over as chair this summer.

The Fed’s hawkish stance now threatens to box in Warsh before he even starts, raising the stakes for both monetary policy and crypto markets.

Sponsored

Sponsored

A Committee Tilting Hawkish — Right Before a Leadership ChangeThe FOMC voted 10-2 on Jan. 28 to hold rates at 3.5%-3.75%. Governors Christopher Waller and Stephen Miran dissented. Both preferred a quarter-point cut, citing labor market risks.

But the broader committee leaned the other way. Several participants warned that further easing amid elevated inflation could signal a weakened commitment to the 2% target. A larger group favored holding rates steady. They wanted a “clear indication that disinflation was firmly back on track” before cutting again.

Most strikingly, several officials wanted the post-meeting statement to reflect possible “upward adjustments” to the federal funds rate. This was a direct reference to potential rate hikes.

Powell Out, Warsh In — And a Policy Collision LoomsChair Jerome Powell’s term ends in May. He has two more meetings at the helm. Trump announced on Jan. 30 that former Fed Governor Warsh would replace him.

Warsh has spoken in favor of lower rates. That aligns with Trump’s repeated calls for cheaper borrowing. The White House on Wednesday insisted recent data showed inflation was “cool and stable.”

But the committee’s hawkish majority may not cooperate. Rate decisions are made by 12 voting members. Only a few lean dovish. The rest see inflation risks as the top priority.

Sponsored

Sponsored

Analysts noted that the committee’s hawkish tone could complicate Warsh’s confirmation process and limit his room to pivot toward cuts early in his tenure.

If confirmed, Warsh’s first meeting as chair would be in June. Futures traders price the next cut around the same time. But the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge — the PCE Price Index — is expected to re-accelerate in the coming months. That could delay any easing further.

Asian Liquidity Returns, Amplifying the SelloffBitcoin began sliding shortly after the minutes dropped during US afternoon trading. It fell from around $68,300 to below $66,500 by early Asian morning hours. That marked a 1.6% decline over 24 hours.

The timing mattered. Asian traders were returning from the Lunar New Year holiday. Rising volumes and turnover amplified the move lower. Escalating US-Iran tensions added fuel. Oil prices surged more than 4%, further weighing on risk appetite across crypto markets.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong called the decline psychological rather than fundamental. He said the exchange was buying back shares and accumulating Bitcoin at lower prices.

What Comes NextThe Fed’s next meeting is on March 17-18. A cut there is effectively off the table. Markets now look to June as the earliest window.

But the real question extends beyond timing. It is whether Warsh can steer a deeply divided committee toward cuts while inflation remains sticky. The hawkish majority has made its position clear. Changing that will require more than a new chair.

For Bitcoin, the macro backdrop remains challenging. The combination of a hawkish Fed, a contested leadership transition, and returning Asian liquidity points to continued volatility in the weeks ahead.

Disclaimer

In adherence to the Trust Project guidelines, BeInCrypto is committed to unbiased, transparent reporting. This news article aims to provide accurate, timely information. However, readers are advised to verify facts independently and consult with a professional before making any decisions based on this content. Please note that our Terms and Conditions, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimers have been updated.

Bitcoin slid sharply below $66,500 during Asian trading hours after the Federal Reserve’s January FOMC meeting minutes revealed a more hawkish stance from policymakers. The crypto market reacted quickly as several Federal Reserve officials signaled they could consider interest rate hikes if inflation remains elevated, dampening risk appetite across global markets.

At the Jan. 27-28 meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee voted 10-2 to keep the federal funds rate unchanged at 3.5%–3.75%. This decision followed three consecutive rate cuts totaling 75 basis points between September and December 2025. Governors Christopher Waller and Stephen Miran dissented, advocating for an additional quarter-point cut, citing concerns that the U.S. labor market may require further support. However, most policymakers favored holding rates steady, emphasizing the need for clear evidence that inflation is returning to the Fed’s 2% target before considering additional easing.

Notably, several officials pushed for language referencing potential “upward adjustments” to rates, indicating that rate hikes remain on the table if inflation proves persistent. The minutes highlighted concerns that progress toward price stability could be slower and more uneven than anticipated. Markets now expect the next possible rate cut no earlier than June, with another potential move in September or October.

The hawkish tone coincides with leadership uncertainty at the Federal Reserve. Chair Jerome Powell’s term ends in May, and President Donald Trump has nominated former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh as his successor. While the White House has described inflation as stable, the Fed’s preferred inflation measure, the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index, is projected to re-accelerate, complicating the outlook for monetary policy.

Bitcoin fell from around $68,300 to below $66,500, marking a 1.6% daily decline. Rising U.S.-Iran tensions and a surge in oil prices added to broader market volatility. Increased trading activity following the Lunar New Year amplified selling pressure, leaving cryptocurrency markets sensitive to further inflation data and Federal Reserve signals.

<Copyright ⓒ TokenPost, unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited>

XRP’s derivatives markets are still showing signs of bearish pressure, with funding rates across major exchanges now in negative territory. According to real-time data, funding rates have been predominantly below zero in recent trading sessions, with the lowest exchange funding rate recorded around -0.0748%. 

At the same time, open interest has returned to levels associated with long-term base zones in previous years. Could this environment lead to a turning point, or is further downside still unfolding for XRP’s price action?

Bearish Derivatives Positioning Shows In Deeply Negative Funding Real-time funding metrics from Coinglass reveal that XRP’s average funding across major exchanges has dipped into negative readings, and several crypto exchanges are on bearish rates. At the time of writing, the lowest funding observed is at -0.0748%, which is a clear indication that short positions are currently dominating sentiment.

Negative funding rates mean that perpetual futures shorts are paying longs, and bearish bets outweigh bullish ones across exchanges. In practice, heavily negative funding can reflect overcrowded short exposure. However, this is a condition that sometimes precedes sharp rebounds if the price begins to stabilize, as short sellers may eventually be forced to cover.

Source: Chart from Coinglass on X Technical analysis posted on the social media platform X by crypto analyst Osemka shows that XRP’s aggregated funding rate, weighted by open interest, is in deep negative territory on a weekly timeframe. As it stands, this metric is now at its lowest level since late 2022, only bested by the week of the November 2022 FTX crash. However, the interesting thing is that the prolonged period of negative funding back then marked a bottom in 2022. 

Open Interest Returns to Multi-Year Base Levels Open interest has also dropped significantly alongside funding in negative levels. The weekly aggregated open interest metric is now sitting on levels associated with previous multi-year accumulation bases. This base, shown in the chart above, has been acting as the base level for open interest since October 2022. Each time open interest has revisited this zone since then, it has been followed by a rebound to higher levels.

In terms of price action, XRP has been struggling to find a sustainable bottom because the wider crypto market is yet to turn bullish. As it stands, XRP now needs to hold above two intermediate supports. The first of these is around $1.45, where recent daily candles have registered wicks. Beneath this lies a larger demand area roughly spanning $1.15 to $1.30. 

On one hand, the negative funding rate points to bearish positioning stress, but history shows this has always occurred just before lows. At the time of writing, XRP is trading at $1.49, although it recently traded above $1.60 during the weekly open. A weekly close above $1.50 will be the first step to confirming a return to bullish momentum.

XRP trading at $1.48 on the 1D chart | Source: XRPUSDT on Tradingview.com Featured image from iStock, chart from Tradingview.com

Bitcoin Ethereum XRP

Ad Disclosure

Ad Disclosure

We believe in full transparency with our readers. Some of our content includes affiliate links, and we may earn a commission through these partnerships. However, this potential compensation never influences our analysis, opinions, or reviews. Our editorial content is created independently of our marketing partnerships, and our ratings are based solely on our established evaluation criteria. Read More

Ad Disclosure

Ad Disclosure

We believe in full transparency with our readers. Some of our content includes affiliate links, and we may earn a commission through these partnerships. However, this potential compensation never influences our analysis, opinions, or reviews. Our editorial content is created independently of our marketing partnerships, and our ratings are based solely on our established evaluation criteria. Read More

Tim Hakki

Web 3 Journalist

Tim Hakki

Part of the Team Since

Feb 2024

About Author

A journalist and copywriter with a decade's experience across music, video games, finance and tech.

Has Also Written

Ad Disclosure

Ad Disclosure

We believe in full transparency with our readers. Some of our content includes affiliate links, and we may earn a commission through these partnerships. However, this potential compensation never influences our analysis, opinions, or reviews. Our editorial content is created independently of our marketing partnerships, and our ratings are based solely on our established evaluation criteria. Read More

Last updated: 

February 18, 2026

Although current prices sit well below recent peaks, ongoing industry developments and technical indicators suggest XRP, Bitcoin and Ethereum may be setting new all-time highs (ATHs) sooner than you think.

Below is a closer look at what could be happening in the news and on the price charts over the next fiscal quarter and a half.

Discover: The best meme coins in the world right now.

XRP (XRP): Ripple’s On-Chain SWIFT Replacement Could Rally to $5With a market cap of $88 billion, XRP ($XRP) remains the leading cryptocurrency in global remittance.

Ripple designed the XRP Ledger (XRPL) as a blockchain for the traditional SWIFT system, offering faster transaction settlement and significantly reduced costs for both institutions and individuals.

Recently, Ripple has reaffirmed its vision, highlighting XRPL’s preparedness for stablecoins and real-world asset tokenization, while hghlighting XRP’s central role within the ecosystem.

Furthermore, reports by United Nations Capital Development Fund and the White House emphasize XRP’s utility as a global solution.

On the regulatory front, U.S. authorities recently approved spot XRP exchange-traded funds (ETFs), opening the door for regulated exposure for more traditional investors.

If broader market sentiment flips bullish, XRP could rally 3x to $5 before the end of summer. Should bearish conditions persist, strong support is likely to keep XRP above $1.

Bitcoin (BTC): A New ATH by Summer?The world’s first and largest cryptocurrency, Bitcoin ($BTC), recorded a ATH of $126,080 on October 6. before shedding 46% over the last five months to trade at.

Since then, BTC has declined by about 46% and now trades below $70,000, following two sharp selloffs triggered by geopolitical concerns tied to possible U.S. military actions involving Iran and Greenland.

Often compared to digital gold, Bitcoin continues to attract demand from both institutions and individual investors looking for protection against inflation and broader economic instability.

Rising institutional adoption, reduced post-halving supply and incoming US crypto legislation could have a catalytic effect, pushing Bitcoin to multiple new highs this year.

Additionally, if Trump delivers on his proposal for a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, this OG crypto could remain the daddy for a long time yet.

Ethereum (ETH): DeFi’s Backbone May Retest Record LevelsEthereum ($ETH) is the dominant force powering decentralized finance (DeFi) and Web3 applications, with a market capitalization of approximately $244 billion.

With nearly $55 billion locked across the network, Ethereum continues to be the most economically active blockchain.

In a bull market, ETH could push past the $5,000 resistance level as early as June, surpassing its previous ATH of $4,946 recorded last August.

Over the longer term, Ethereum’s path toward five-figure prices will depend heavily on clearer regulatory frameworks in the United States and supportive macroeconomic trends.

Both factors are critical for accelerating institutional adoption, particularly in stablecoins and real-world asset tokenization.

At present, ETH is trading below its 30-day moving average, with the relative strength index hovering near oversold territory around 36. For bullish investors, this range may represent an attractive accumulation zone.

New Bitcoin Hyper Presale Turns Bitcoin into an Ethereum ChallengerWhile established networks such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP offer relative stability in a volatile market, the largest gains this cycle may come from early-stage innovators like Bitcoin Hyper ($HYPER), a new presale project gaining rapid traction.

Bitcoin Hyper brings Solana-style performance to Bitcoin via a proprietary Layer-2 network, while dramatically lowering transaction fees.

The Bitcoin upgrade allows BTC holders to stake assets, generate yield, trade tokens, and interact with smart contracts without moving funds off the network, significantly expanding Bitcoin’s functionality.

With $31.5 million already raised and growing interest from large wallets and exchanges, $HYPER is shaping up to be one of the most closely watched crypto launches of the year.

Investors interested in locking in $HYPER at its fixed presale price can visit the official Bitcoin Hyper website and connect a supported wallet such as Best Wallet.

Purchases can also be done via bank card.

Visit the Official Website Here

In brief Coinbase’s crypto-backed lending product has expanded to several altcoins. Those include XRP, Dogecoin, Cardano, and Litecoin. The product faced a wave of liquidations earlier this month. Coinbase signaled on Wednesday that its crypto-backed lending product is expanding in the U.S., unveiling support for XRP, Dogecoin, Cardano, and Litecoin.

By posting their holdings as collateral on decentralized finance protocol Morpho, customers can borrow up to $100,000 in Circle’s USDC stablecoin, the exchange said on X. The service is available throughout the U.S., excluding New York, Coinbase added.

It marks a continuation of Coinbase’s efforts to broaden the product’s appeal, as it approaches $2 billion in originations, according to a Dune dashboard. The product began accepting Ethereum in November, after accepting Bitcoin more than a year earlier.

XRP, Dogecoin, Cardano, and Litecoin had a combined market cap of $117 billion on Wednesday, CoinGecko data shows. Although that was less than half of Ethereum’s total value, the assets have been popular among retail investors in recent years.

Coinbase has positioned the product as a way for customers to grow their wealth in ways that they otherwise couldn’t. That pitch has centered around DeFi’s ability to augment Coinbase’s business, but it also speaks to what those digital assets are capable of natively.

Ethereum and Cardano can be staked natively on their respective networks, allowing users to earn rewards by validating transactions. 

That isn’t the case for XRP, Dogecoin, and Litecoin—making crypto-backed lending one of the few ways for holders to generate liquidity without selling their positions.

That could be a big unlock for Coinbase. The exchange reported last week that it held $17.2 billion in XRP on its platform, as of Dec. 31, according to an SEC filing.

Crypto-backed loans allow investors to access liquidity from appreciated assets without triggering immediate capital gains taxes, in theory. However, liquidations can create tax obligations, according to law firm Greenspoon Marder LLP.

Liquidations occur on Morpho when the value of a user’s collateral falls too much relative to the amount they borrowed. Once a certain threshold is reached, a user’s loan is deemed unhealthy, allowing third parties to pay it back and gain the associated collateral at a discount.  

What’s more, assets posted as collateral through Coinbase’s product are wrapped. Although that process allows assets like XRP to exist on networks like Ethereum, swapping a crypto for its wrapped version is treated as a taxable event in the U.S.

Coinbase noted on X that crypto-backed loans face liquidation risk, and it does not provide tax advice. 

Still, when liquidations flared on Feb. 6 while Bitcoin and Ethereum tumbled, a Coinbase spokesperson told Decrypt at the time that it “enforces an additional buffer when users take out a loan to reduce liquidation risk.” It also notifies borrowers as that threshold is approached, up to every 30 minutes, they said.

They added that the exchange is exploring additional ways for users to protect their loans. Around that time, $170 million worth of crypto-backed loans had been liquidated over a seven-day period, Decrypt previously reported.

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