Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Your stablecoins sit on Arbitrum, your SOL is in a Solana wallet, and you still hold some BTC on Bitcoin. Moving value between them often means a centralized exchange, a bridge, or several apps that each cover only part of the journey.

A cross-chain swap app can replace that patchwork. The real question is how far its coverage reaches, and what each route needs from you.

Can One App Swap Across EVM, Solana and Bitcoin?
Yes. One app can swap across EVM chains, Solana and Bitcoin when it connects to cross-chain protocols that support routes between those networks.

On KyberSwap, Cross-chain Swap supports the major EVM chains currently supported on KyberSwap, plus Bitcoin, NEAR and Solana. You can swap from any token on one chain to a different token on another chain, directly through KyberSwap, with no external steps required.

Coverage still works route by route. A swap is only possible when a supported protocol can handle that source chain, destination chain and token pair, and when you have a compatible wallet or receiving address for each side.

Why Don’t EVM Chains, Solana and Bitcoin Connect Natively?
EVM chains, Solana and Bitcoin do not connect natively because each runs its own network with its own transaction rules, address format and wallets. A token on one of these networks cannot move to another network by itself.

EcosystemExample networksAddress formatWalletEVMEthereum, Arbitrum, Base, BNB ChainStarts with 0xOne EVM wallet works across EVM networksSolanaSolanaBase58 string, no 0x prefixNeeds a Solana walletBitcoinBitcoinOften starts with bc1, 1 or 3Needs a Bitcoin wallet
EVM chains are the easiest group to move between. They share the Ethereum Virtual Machine, so the same wallet and address usually work on all of them.

Solana and Bitcoin are different. Each uses its own address format, and an EVM wallet address cannot receive funds on either network. That is why a route from an EVM chain to Solana or Bitcoin needs a protocol that can settle on the other network, plus a valid receiving address there.

How Does One App Reach Several Blockchains?
One app reaches several blockchains by connecting to cross-chain protocols instead of building a separate bridge for every pair of networks. Each protocol supports its own set of chains, tokens and routes.

An app built on a single protocol inherits that protocol’s coverage and its limits. An app that aggregates several protocols can offer any route that at least one of them supports.

KyberSwap Cross-chain Swap takes the aggregation approach. It aggregates liquidity from multiple third-party cross-chain swaps and cross-chain swap protocols. Supported protocols include NEAR IntentS, Across, Relay Protocol, deBridge, LI.FI, Mayan Finance, Bungee and Symbiosis.

After you enter an amount, KyberSwap automatically fetches real-time quotes from these protocols and selects the option that provides the best rate among the quotes by default. To see every option, click More Options to open the Choose Your Route section. There you can compare available providers, estimated return amounts, fees and estimated arrival times.

Support for chains and protocols could be changed over time, so the routes you see reflect what is available when you request a quote.

Which Networks Does KyberSwap Cross-chain Swap Support?
KyberSwap Cross-chain Swap supports the major EVM chains currently supported on KyberSwap, plus Bitcoin, NEAR and Solana.

On the EVM side, this includes networks such as Ethereum, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon POS, Avalanche, Robinhood Chain and Arc. The full list is on the Supported Exchanges and Networks page.

These networks combine into five route types:

RouteWhat it connectsEVM ↔ EVMTwo EVM chains, such as Arbitrum and BaseSolana ↔ EVMSolana and an EVM chainBTC ↔ EVMBitcoin and an EVM chainNEAR ↔ EVMNEAR and an EVM chainNon-EVM ↔ Non-EVMTwo non-EVM networks, such as Bitcoin and Solana
Bitcoin, Solana and NEAR Are Reached Through Cross-chain Swap
Swap and Limit Order on KyberSwap run on EVM networks. Bitcoin, Solana and NEAR are supported through Cross-chain Swap.

In practice, KyberSwap is where you move value into or out of Bitcoin, Solana and NEAR. Once your tokens arrive on an EVM network, you can keep trading there with Swap or Limit Order.

Which Wallet Do You Need for Each Route?
You need a wallet connected on the source chain, and a receiving address on the destination chain. What that looks like depends on the route.

RouteSource chainDestination chainEVM ↔ EVMConnect your Web3 walletNo additional wallet connection is required if the same EVM-compatible wallet supports the destination networkEVM to Bitcoin or NEARConnect your Web3 walletEnter your Bitcoin or NEAR receiving address, or click Select Wallet to connect a compatible walletBitcoin to other chainsClick Select Wallet and connect a compatible wallet for BitcoinEnter your receiving address, or click Select Wallet to connect a compatible walletNEAR to other chainsClick Select Wallet and connect a compatible wallet for NEAREnter your receiving address, or click Select Wallet to connect a compatible wallet
For EVM ↔ EVM routes, the output tokens go to your connected wallet address by default. To send them somewhere else, enable the Send to other wallet option and enter the desired receiving address.

For other network cases, if you do not connect a compatible wallet for the destination chain, you are required to manually enter the receiving address. If you connect one, the default receiving address will be your connected wallet address.

Because address formats differ across EVM chains, Solana and Bitcoin, the receiving address is the detail to check most carefully. The confirmation box shows the destination address before you click Confirm Swap.

How Do Fees and Processing Time Change by Route?
The Platform Fee for Cross-chain Swap depends on the route and the volatility level of the tokens. It ranges from 0.05% to 0.25%.

RouteStable tokens & Same native tokenCommonExoticHigh-volatilityEVM ↔ EVM0.05%0.10%0.15%0.25%NEAR ↔ EVM0.1%0.2%0.2%0.2%Solana ↔ EVM0.1%0.2%0.2%0.2%BTC ↔ EVM0.25%0.25%0.25%0.25%Non-EVM ↔ Non-EVM0.25%0.25%0.25%0.25%
BTC ↔ EVM and Non-EVM ↔ Non-EVM routes use a flat 0.25%. Solana ↔ EVM and NEAR ↔ EVM routes range from 0.1% to 0.2%.

The applicable Platform Fee is shown in the swap details section after the route is generated and before you confirm the transaction. Some third-party providers may also charge a Protocol Fee for using their route. If applicable, it appears in the Swap Details or in the Choose Your Route section.

Processing Time
Some chains or protocols may take more time to complete. Before you confirm, check the Estimated Processing Time in the confirmation box.

After you start the swap, you can track its status in the transaction history panel. The status moves from Processing to Success or Failed.

Frequently Asked Questions
Can I Swap Bitcoin to Solana on KyberSwap?
Yes. Cross-chain Swap on KyberSwap supports Non-EVM ↔ Non-EVM routes, which connect networks such as Bitcoin and Solana. These routes use a flat 0.25% Platform Fee.

Can I Use Swap or Limit Order on Solana or Bitcoin?
No. Swap and Limit Order on KyberSwap run on EVM networks. Bitcoin, Solana and NEAR are supported through Cross-chain Swap.

Do I Need a Different Wallet for Each Ecosystem?
Usually, yes. One EVM wallet works across EVM chains, but Bitcoin and Solana use their own address formats. For a non-EVM destination, you can enter the receiving address manually instead of connecting that wallet.

What Happens if a Cross-Chain Swap Fails?
A failed cross-chain swap on KyberSwap is automatically reverted. The input tokens are returned to your sender wallet address.

When Does One App Make Sense for Multi-Chain Swaps?
One app makes the most sense when your assets are spread across EVM chains, Solana and Bitcoin, and you want to move between them without opening a separate bridge for each route.

Before you confirm any route, check four things: the route is available, you have a wallet or receiving address for both sides, the Platform Fee tier fits the trade, and the Estimated Processing Time works for you.

To see which routes are available for your tokens, open the Cross-chain tab on KyberSwap or visit kyberswap.com/cross-chain and compare live quotes before you sign.

Solana [SOL] is recovering after last week’s correction, with buyers defending the $95-$100 demand zone as a major network upgrade draws attention.

According to recent reports, Solana announced that Alpenglow is now live on the Solana mainnet, cutting network processing times from approximately 12.8 seconds to just 150 milliseconds.

The upgrade arrives as institutional demand shows signs of improvement. Notably, Solana ETFs recorded significant net inflows over the past 24 hours, suggesting renewed investor interest.

So, can Alpenglow provide the spark required to extend SOL’s recovery?

ETF inflows and whale activity support its current recovery
Just hours after the announcements, the network reported $585,000 in daily SOL ETF inflows. This points to a positive institutional flow, as big players projected increased efficiency on the network after the upgrades.

Source: SoSoValue 
Moreover, the network whales are aligning with the network’s institutional players. According to the recent Futures Average Order Size data, Solana whales are bagging more orders at the current trading price.

Source: CryptoQuant
Besides the positive ETF inflows, the network’s Spot Volume Bubble Map data is flashing overheating signals. The spike points to current increased trading activity across the Spot markets. To be specific, the network trading volume spiked by 6% to $2.27 billion.

However, it is key for the prospective investors to note that if buying becomes crowded or larger holders begin taking profits, SOL could face renewed volatility despite the positive developments.

Source: CryptoQuant
Can SOL sustain its long-term uptrend?
Alpenglow upgrades could provide a potential fundamental spark, while ETF inflows and the rebound from the key demand zone between $95 and $100 offer additional support for the recovery.

To strengthen the bullish outlook, SOL must maintain buying pressure and demand rather than reacting quickly to the upgrade. Holding above the demand zone between $95 and $100 would help preserve the recovery structure, while overheating signals warrant caution.

The upgrade strengthens Solana‘s long-term trend, but sustained adoption and market demand will determine whether that translates into a lasting SOL rally.

Source: TradingView

Final Summary

Solana’s Alpenglow upgrade reportedly reduces processing times from 12.8 seconds to 150 milliseconds, strengthening the network’s performance outlook.
SOL rebounds from the demand zone between $95 and $100 as ETFs record $585,000 in daily inflows, but overheating signals could increase short-term volatility.

Solana has processed $5 trillion in stablecoin volume so far in 2026, according to the network’s official account. The tally runs through October 22, which means the year still has more than two months left on the clock.

A stablecoin is a token built to hold a steady value, usually pegged one-to-one to the US dollar. Solana’s $5 trillion figure is the total value of those tokens changing hands on its network this year. It measures activity, not holdings.

September was a standout month. Stablecoin supply on Solana climbed to a record $17.51 billion. That same month, the network logged 557 million stablecoin transfers. No other tracked chain recorded more.

Solana holds only about 5% of the total stablecoin supply. Yet adjusted transfer data shows it captured between 32-36% of global stablecoin transfer volume during peak months in 2026.

Supply has eased slightly since the September peak. Cumulative transaction volumes, however, have kept growing steadily into late 2026.

At Money20/20 USA, Amir A. Valliani of the Solana Foundation discussed the network’s growth. He pointed to the involvement of major players such as Western Union in using stablecoin technology. Western Union and other payment firms are exploring or expanding stablecoin usage on Solana.

Samsung plans to integrate USDC transfers into its Galaxy wallet, a move that could potentially reach 82 million US devices.

The activation of Solana’s Alpenglow network upgrade is expected to bring transaction finality down to approximately 150 milliseconds.

There are caveats worth keeping in view. Transfer volume is a busy metric. It can be inflated by automated trading, arbitrage bots, and funds cycling repeatedly between the same parties. The research cites adjusted transfer volume for the 32-36% share, an attempt to filter some of that noise.

Samsung’s USDC integration remains a plan, and the 82 million device figure describes potential reach, not active users. Alpenglow’s roughly 150 millisecond finality is an expected improvement that still has to perform under real-world load. Western Union and its peers are exploring or expanding usage, which leaves room between pilot programs and full-scale deployment.

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

A stock’s digital twin is now busier than the stock itself. Tokenized shares of Vida Global, trading on Solana as VIDAx, logged 248% more volume than the company’s traditional shares over a 30-day window.

The data comes from SolanaFloor, which published the comparison on October 22, 2026.

The numbers behind the copy
The VIDAx figure covers the 30 days before October 22. During that stretch, the on-chain token traded well above the volume of Vida Global’s shares on the NYSE American.

Vida Global was not the only name in the data. The tokenized version of Trump Media & Technology Group, ticker DJT, reached 27% of its traditional finance volume over the same period.

The VIDAx token arrived shortly after Vida Global went public in May 2026. Since then, it has shown fast growth in both holders and trading volume.

Lyle Pratt, Vida Global’s CEO, has been vocal about that traction. He has repeatedly pointed to the token’s expanding holder base and rising volume as evidence the experiment is working.

A bigger wave on Solana
Tokenized equities on Solana hit $4.4 billion in volume in September 2026 alone.

Tokenized equity supply on the network reached a record $684 million, a 47% jump in just three weeks.

Solana’s tokenized equities crossed 1 million holder addresses around late September and early October.

Solana has consistently accounted for more than 95% of global on-chain equity volume in quarterly figures.

How tokenized stocks actually work
Issuers including xStocks, backed by Backed Finance, and Backpack Securities provide these tokens on a 1:1 basis. Each token is meant to correspond to one underlying share.

Those tokens trade on Solana decentralized exchanges such as Raydium. Because blockchains do not close, the trading does not stop when the NYSE closing bell rings.

What this means for traders and issuers
When a token outtrades its underlying stock, it becomes a primary venue rather than a mirror. If more trading happens on Solana than on the NYSE American for VIDA, the on-chain market may increasingly influence where the stock’s price is set, especially outside regular hours.

Percentages deserve some caution, though. A 248% gap describes a ratio, not a dollar amount, and ratios can look dramatic when the traditional baseline is modest.

There are risks worth tracking. Tokenized stocks depend on the issuer actually holding the underlying shares, so the 1:1 backing is only as solid as the custodian behind it.

Round-the-clock trading also cuts both ways. Markets that never close can react to news instantly, but they can also move sharply during hours when traditional venues are dark and less liquidity is available to absorb big orders.

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

Impermanent loss is the difference between the value of holding tokens in your wallet and providing those same tokens as liquidity in an automated market maker (AMM). Comparing a liquidity position against simply holding the same assets reveals whether the position is truly profitable.

A positive balance or accumulated trading fees on a pool dashboard does not guarantee an overall gain.

Your liquidity position is up. You have collected trading fees. The pool dashboard shows a positive number. But would you have been better off simply keeping the tokens in your wallet? That is the question impermanent loss answers.

For liquidity providers, the headline number on a position does not tell the whole story. What matters is the result compared with the alternative: holding the same assets without putting them into a liquidity pool.

The math is predictable. Once you understand it, you can estimate how much price divergence could cost you, decide which pairs fit your risk tolerance and judge whether fees and other rewards are enough to compensate.

Core Applications of Impermanent Loss MathEstimating divergence costs: Liquidity providers can calculate in advance how much price divergence between pooled tokens will reduce their position value.Selecting asset pairs: Liquidity providers can choose token pairs that match their individual risk tolerance by analyzing price divergence scenarios.Evaluating fee compensation: Liquidity providers can determine whether collected swap fees and protocol rewards are large enough to offset their divergence losses.What is impermanent loss, really?Impermanent loss is the opportunity cost that can arise when you provide liquidity to an AMM instead of simply holding the same assets.

Suppose you have $1,000 worth of two tokens. You can keep them in your wallet, or you can deposit them into a liquidity pool.

If the relative price between those tokens changes, an AMM automatically changes the quantities of each asset in your position. Arbitrage traders help bring the pool price back in line with the wider market by buying one asset from the pool and adding the other.

As a result, when you compare your liquidity position with the tokens you would have held, the pool position can be worth less.

A useful term for this is divergence loss. The loss comes from the prices of the two assets diverging from the ratio at which you originally supplied them. The greater that divergence, the larger the potential difference between providing liquidity and holding.

Divergence Loss CharacteristicsAlternative naming: Divergence loss is an alternative term for impermanent loss.Origin of the loss: Divergence loss occurs when the prices of two assets separate from the ratio at which they were originally supplied.Impact of price divergence: Greater price divergence between two pooled assets creates a larger potential value difference between providing liquidity and holding.Realizing Versus Eliminating the LossReversing the loss: Impermanent loss can disappear if relative token prices return to their original ratio before a withdrawal occurs.Locking in the loss: Withdrawing tokens while relative prices remain diverged locks in the difference in value permanently.Dollar gains with impermanent loss: A liquidity position can rise in overall dollar value while still suffering impermanent loss.The holding benchmark: Impermanent loss occurs whenever simply holding original tokens produces a higher value than maintaining the liquidity pool position."Impermanent" can therefore be misleading. If the relative prices return to their original ratio before you withdraw, the loss can disappear. But if you withdraw while the prices remain diverged, the difference is locked in.

Impermanent loss does not necessarily mean your position has lost money in dollar terms. Your liquidity position can rise in value and still suffer impermanent loss if simply holding the original tokens would have produced a higher value. That distinction is crucial.

Why impermanent loss happensImpermanent loss is a consequence of how AMMs keep their internal prices aligned with the wider market. Consider a basic constant-product AMM. It maintains the relationship:

x × y = k

Here, x and y are the quantities of the two tokens in the pool and k remains constant, ignoring fees and liquidity changes.

Suppose an ETH/USDC pool starts with ETH priced at $2,000. Then the external market price of ETH rises to $4,000.

The AMM does not receive an external price update and simply change its displayed ETH price. Its price comes from the ratio of assets inside the pool.

That creates an arbitrage opportunity. While ETH remains cheaper in the pool than elsewhere, arbitrage traders can buy ETH from the pool and add USDC. As ETH leaves and USDC enters, the ratio changes until the pool price approaches the external market price.

The liquidity provider is left with less of the asset that increased in relative value and more of the other asset.

The Arbitrage Rebalancing MechanismPrice discrepancy: A divergence between external market prices and pool asset ratios creates an arbitrage opportunity.Arbitrage execution: Arbitrage traders purchase the cheaper asset from the pool and add the other asset until the pool price approaches the external market price.Asset reallocation: Arbitrage trading leaves liquidity providers with less of the asset that increased in relative value and more of the other asset.Liquidity Provision Versus HoldingHold strategy asset retention: An investor who holds tokens outside a pool retains the full original amount of both assets.Pool selling mechanism: An automated market maker liquidity position becomes worth less than a holding strategy because the pool automatically sells the asset rising in relative value.Directional neutrality: Relative price divergence causes impermanent loss regardless of whether an asset price moves upward or downward.Divergence scale: Greater distance between the current relative price and the starting price ratio increases the total divergence loss.If the LP had simply held the original tokens, they would still own the original amount of ETH. Because the AMM sold some ETH as its price rose, the LP's position is worth less than the hold strategy.

The same principle applies in the other direction. Impermanent loss is caused by price divergence, not by whether a token goes up or down.

The further the relative price moves from its starting point, the larger the divergence loss becomes. For more on the underlying mechanism, see Automated market makers explained.

The impermanent loss formulaFor a standard 50/50 constant-product AMM, impermanent loss can be calculated using:

IL = (2 × √r / (1 + r)) − 1

Here:

IL = impermanent loss relative to holding r = the new price divided by the original price

Suppose one asset doubles relative to the other. The price ratio is therefore:

r = 2

Put that into the formula:

IL = (2 × √2 / 3) − 1

The result is approximately:

−5.72%

That does not mean your entire position fell 5.72% in dollar terms.

It means your liquidity position is worth approximately 5.72% less than the value you would have had by simply holding the original assets, before accounting for trading fees or other rewards.

Here is what different levels of price divergence look like:

Price divergence

IL percentage

Equivalent loss on a $1,000 portfolio

1.25x

0.62%

$6.19

1.5x

2.02%

$20.20

2x

5.72%

$57.19

5x

25.46%

$254.64

The relationship is not linear. A 25% price move produces relatively little impermanent loss. But as the two assets move further apart, the effect becomes much larger.

A fivefold divergence creates an impermanent loss of roughly 25.5% relative to holding.

The formula is also symmetrical in economic terms. If one asset rises fivefold relative to the other, or the other asset rises fivefold relative to the first, what matters is the magnitude of the relative price divergence.

An impermanent loss calculator essentially applies this formula for you. But understanding the formula matters because it shows exactly what drives the risk: not simply volatility, but relative price movement between the assets in your pool.

Does asset pair choice change your risk?Yes. The relationship between the two assets is one of the biggest factors determining your exposure to impermanent loss.

Assets whose prices tend to move together generally create less divergence than assets that behave very differently.

Stablecoin pools illustrate the principle. If two assets both remain close to the same reference value, their relative price should stay near the starting ratio. That can keep impermanent loss low.

But "stable" does not mean risk-free. A stablecoin can deviate from its peg, and if that divergence becomes significant or permanent, an LP can still face substantial losses.

At the other end of the spectrum are pairs containing two volatile assets whose prices can move independently. An ETH/small-cap-token pool, for example, can experience large relative price changes if one asset rises or falls much faster than the other.

The important question is therefore not simply, "Are these assets volatile?" It is: How likely are they to diverge from each other? Two volatile assets that move closely together can produce less impermanent loss than a pair in which one asset remains stable while the other moves sharply.

Pair selection does not eliminate impermanent loss. It changes the probability and potential magnitude of the divergence that causes it.

Paper loss vs. realized lossImpermanent loss changes as relative asset prices move. That is why the word "impermanent" exists in the first place.

Suppose you enter a liquidity pool when two assets have a particular price ratio. The ratio later changes, producing a 5% impermanent loss relative to holding.

If you keep the position open and the assets eventually return to their original relative price, that divergence loss can disappear.

If you withdraw while the 5% divergence still exists, however, you receive the pool's current asset composition. At that point, the difference compared with holding has effectively been realized.

For an LP, the decision can be framed as a continuing comparison:

Time horizon therefore matters. A temporary divergence may reverse. A lasting divergence may not. And waiting for prices to return to their original ratio carries its own market risk: there is no guarantee that they ever will.

The practical question is not simply whether your position currently shows impermanent loss. It is whether the total economics of keeping the position open still make sense relative to your alternatives.

How to reduce your impermanent loss exposureYou cannot remove the mathematical possibility of impermanent loss from a conventional AMM position. But you can change your exposure and consider whether the compensation you receive is sufficient.

Choose assets that are less likely to divergeCorrelated pairs generally reduce the chance of large relative price movements. Stablecoin pairs are the clearest example. If both assets remain close to their intended pegs, the relative price movement should be limited.

The trade-off is that lower divergence risk does not automatically make a liquidity position attractive. Fees, pool activity and other risks still matter.

Compare trading fees with divergence lossTrading fees are the primary mechanism that can compensate LPs for impermanent loss. Every time traders use a pool, a portion of the fees can accrue to liquidity providers according to the protocol's rules. That means impermanent loss should not be considered in isolation.

Imagine your position experiences 3% impermanent loss relative to holding but accumulates fees equivalent to 5% of the position's starting value over the same period. Other things being equal, the fees have more than offset the divergence loss.

If the position accumulates only 1% in fees, they have not. The relevant comparison is therefore between the cost created by divergence and the compensation generated by providing liquidity.

High trading volume can increase fee generation, but past activity does not guarantee future fees. And a sudden large price divergence can outweigh fees accumulated over a much longer period.

Consider your timingImpermanent loss depends on the price ratio when you enter and when you assess or close the position.

Entering immediately before a major divergence can expose the position to significant IL quickly. A more stable relative price can produce a very different outcome.

This does not mean you can reliably predict the market. It means the current relationship between the assets and the possibility of future divergence belong in your decision.

Understand concentrated liquidityConcentrated liquidity allows LPs to provide assets within selected price ranges instead of distributing liquidity across the entire price curve.

A narrower range can make capital more efficient and potentially generate more fees for a given amount of liquidity while the market remains inside that range.

But concentration changes the risk. If the price moves through or outside your chosen range, the composition of your position can change substantially and the position can become entirely concentrated in one asset. Narrower ranges therefore require closer attention to price movement and can increase exposure to divergence.

Uniswap v3 is a well-known example of this model. This is a different liquidity structure, not a way to make impermanent loss disappear.

Understand protocol-specific protection mechanismsSome protocols have experimented with mechanisms intended to compensate LPs for impermanent loss under specified conditions.

Bancor, for example, has used protocol-level impermanent-loss protection mechanisms in previous designs.

Such mechanisms add their own rules, dependencies and risks. They should be evaluated as part of the specific protocol rather than treated as a general solution to impermanent loss.

Is impermanent loss worth the risk?There is no universal answer. What matters is the net outcome. A simple way to think about an LP position is:

Net outcome = fee income + rewards − impermanent loss

That framework is more useful than looking at any component separately.

A pool can generate substantial fees and still leave you worse off than holding if price divergence is large enough. Conversely, modest impermanent loss can be outweighed by sufficient fees.

You also need to consider risks that are not captured by the formula: smart contract risk, token risk and the possibility that an asset permanently loses value or a stablecoin loses its peg.

The key benchmark is the alternative. Ask: What would my position be worth if I had simply held the same assets? Then compare that with the current value of your LP position plus the fees and any other rewards you have actually earned.

LPs cannot control how far two market prices eventually diverge. But they can control some other costs associated with their DeFi activity, including how they swap assets when entering, adjusting or exiting positions.

A DEX aggregator can search liquidity across multiple sources rather than relying on a single pool. The 1inch app uses aggregation to find efficient swap routes across available liquidity.

Intent-based swaps powered by 1inch Fusion can also help protect swaps from MEV and remove the need for the user to pay network gas for the swap itself. For an LP already managing unavoidable risks such as price divergence, reducing avoidable execution costs can matter to the overall result.

FAQWhat is impermanent loss in cryptocurrency?Impermanent loss is the difference between the value of assets supplied to an AMM liquidity pool and the value those same assets would have had if you had simply held them. It occurs when the relative prices of the pooled assets diverge.

Is a liquidity pool profitable?It can be, but profitability depends on the complete outcome. Trading fees and other rewards need to be compared with impermanent loss and other risks. A pool generating fees does not automatically mean an LP is better off than holding the underlying assets.

How do I make money with liquidity pools despite impermanent loss?LPs receive compensation such as trading fees and, in some protocols, additional rewards. Whether these outweigh impermanent loss depends on trading activity, fee structure, price divergence and the time the position remains active.

Staking vs. providing liquidity: which has more risk?They involve different risks. Providing liquidity to an AMM can expose you to impermanent loss because the relative prices of pooled assets can change. Staking does not generally create the same AMM-based divergence loss, but it can involve other risks depending on the asset, network and staking mechanism.

How do concentrated liquidity ranges affect impermanent loss?Concentrated liquidity places an LP's capital within a selected price range. Narrow ranges can increase capital efficiency and fee generation while the price remains within the range, but they can also increase exposure to changes in asset composition as the price moves. If the price leaves the range, the position can end up entirely in one asset.

Can impermanent loss go away on its own?Yes, if the relative price of the pooled assets returns to the ratio at which you entered the position. But there is no guarantee that prices will return. If you withdraw while prices remain diverged, the loss relative to holding is locked in.

Do stablecoin pools have impermanent loss?Yes, although it can be small while both assets remain close to their pegs. If one stablecoin deviates substantially from its expected value, the relative price can diverge and impermanent loss can become significant.

Impermanent loss is not an obscure edge case. It is built into the mechanics of AMM liquidity provision. Understanding the formula lets you evaluate the trade-off before committing your assets rather than discovering it after you withdraw.

Explore 1inch DeFi Academy and start learning today.

Disclaimer: This content is for general information purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice and is not a recommendation to buy or sell any particular digital asset or to employ any specific investment strategy.

Update (Oct. 22 at 10:31 UTC): This article has been updated to include comments from Sébastien Borget and Ben James on AI-driven game development.

AI could unleash a flood of short-lived crypto “meme games,” attracting the same speculative traders who helped push memecoins to record highs in late 2024, according to Illuvium co-founder Kieran Warwick. 

Speculative crypto games such as Wolf Game and Fishing Frenzy, where players compete for financial rewards, once took months to develop. But Warwick says AI tools have reduced the time and cost of creating similar games to just days and around $1,000. 

He predicts as many as 100,000 such games could launch within a year, with many designed to survive for only a few days — long enough for their creators to turn a profit. 

“Like you have serial deployers of memes, you’ll get serial deployers of games,” Warwick told Cointelegraph. 

But whether that flood would benefit crypto gaming and the broader industry is less clear. Cheaper development could make niche games viable and revive attention across the sector, but a wave of disposable crypto games could also leave a lot of speculators “holding the bag.”

“There will be ridiculous gains, and people will get absolutely f****ing rinsed,” Warwick wrote on X on Monday. 

A memecoin-style boom… and bust? In 2024, Pump.fun and similar launchpads helped fuel a surge in memecoins by making tokens easy to create. The sector’s combined market capitalization reached $150.6 billion in December 2024 before falling nearly 69% to $47.2 billion by November 2025, according to CoinGecko.

The boom divided industry figures, with supporters championing memecoins’ appeal to traders while critics argued they diverted capital from useful projects and damaged crypto’s reputation.

Warwick said he expects a similar speculative wave to touch crypto meme games. 

“These degens who are gambling in crypto, they get a thousand-dollar paycheck and they put $500 in Pump.Fun. You’re giving them a new venue and a new shiny wrapper … for them to be able to go and gamble.”

Asked whether a mass of short-lived crypto games will ultimately be good for the crypto gaming ecosystem, Warwick said: “probably not.” 

“Like in the long run, I don’t think so. The sustainable model that Illuvium has been building towards for years, where really good quality games with ownership underneath, that I think is still the dream of where crypto gaming should be building towards.” Animoca Brands and The Sandbox CEO Robby Yung took a similar view. 

“I think if there is a type of meme game, as Warwick is describing, that doesn’t particularly take much effort to make… I don’t think it would become a lasting category because user retention is the lifeblood of games and always has been,” he told Cointelegraph. 

Sébastien Borget, president of the Blockchain Game Alliance and co-founder of The Sandbox said he sees the speculative wave as one part of a broader expansion in game creation.

“We’re witnessing a true Cambrian explosion of games and creativity, where anyone can turn even their wildest ideas into playable experiences without worrying about the complexities of 2D/3D asset creation, level design, music, or sound effects,” he told Cointelegraph.

“But as the cost of experimenting and bringing ideas to life approaches zero, and the abundance of content explodes, the real challenge shifts from creation to discovery, distribution, and reaching an audience.”

More games, but where are the players? That audience question was central for Mirai Labs co-founder and CEO Corey Wilton, who questioned whether an AI-driven surge in supply can overcome weak demand for crypto games.

“We shipped quite a few games, six or seven games, into the market,” Wilton said. “Ultimately, it came to the conclusion that the demand for or within the Web3 space simply isn’t there.”

Dappradar’s tracking of gaming decentralized apps (Dapps) shows just $232.2 million in total value locked in 2,356 apps. A basket of the top 50 gaming tokens has a combined market capitalization of $3.8 billion at the time of writing. 

“I think the lack of demand and liquidity in so-called altcoins is definitely an issue, but I think, at the same time, there is also a lack of choice out there of really enjoyable, fun games that captivate people’s imaginations,” said Yung. 

“The reality is the number of game titles that use crypto is very small, and so there’s not a lot of choice for consumers. That makes it difficult to actually judge whether crypto is the issue or it’s just that there aren’t enough good games.”

Recent crypto games show there is still interest in the sector despite recent pivots. The developers of Yield Fields, an upcoming web3 farming game built on the Robinhood chain, raised an estimated $8.3 million on Oct. 14 selling digital land plots as nonfungible tokens. The game is set to launch at the end of the month. 

AI game development hits cryptoData shows AI has already entered crypto game development.

In the Blockchain Game Alliance’s 2025 survey of 506 industry professionals, 32.8% said their company had implemented or experimented with AI for game design and content creation.

Yung compared the arrival of AI development tools to the early days of mobile gaming, when cheaper development encouraged more studios to enter the market. 

“Frankly, I think that’s a great thing all around,” said Yung. “It reminds me a bit of when mobile first started to become popular around 2010. A lot of people started developing for mobile because it was much cheaper and much faster than developing for PC or console.” 

“What happened was we just got more games of all kinds of quality, and customers had a choice of playing what they liked,” he said.

Ben James, CEO of Atlas Design and 404.xyz, said the lower barriers would make originality more important.

“AI will make it easier to launch games, and those that lack creativity, innovation or passion will converge on the average: a sameness we call ‘slop’. At the same time, games that are unique in their aesthetics, gameplay or even business models will stand out.”

Magazine: Agents can trade 24/7 — but Yat Siu warns you could lose access at any time

Two critical remote code execution flaws in the PHP language runtime, found by frontier AI models after a decade of manual audits failed to catch them, put 70% of the web on notice.

Frontier AI models have identified two critical remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities in the PHP language runtime that remained undetected through a decade of manual security audits.

The vulnerabilities, tracked as CVE-2026-109618 and CVE-2026-109619, allow unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary code on servers running affected versions of PHP. AI-assisted analysis identified these memory-corruption flaws, which had remained hidden in the PHP codebase for more than a decade.

The Mechanism of PHP2Shell Wiz Research, which combined these vulnerabilities into an exploit script dubbed “php2shell,” identified the flaws as memory-safety issues stemming from how PHP handles fatal errors during request processing. CVE-2026-109618 involves out-of-memory (OOM) corruption, where PHP interrupts a request while internal data is only partially initialized. During the subsequent cleanup process, the runtime incorrectly treats this invalid data as valid. CVE-2026-109619 involves stale global state, where request-owned internal state persists after its backing memory has been freed, allowing a subsequent request handled by the same worker to utilize the stale data before it is reset.

Both vulnerabilities carry a CVSS v4.0 score of 9.2, marking them as critical. The flaws exploit the runtime’s trust-through-defaults pattern: the engine assumes its internal state is consistent even after an interrupted request. This pattern of implicit trust in memory management is a recurring theme in recent infrastructure vulnerabilities, similar to issues previously tracked in BeyondTrust, nine-layer, and ConnectWise. Unlike the identity-layer and supply-chain trust gaps analyzed in our prior coverage, including the synthesis in the nine-layer report, PHP2Shell represents a distinct class of failure: it sits below the application layer entirely, where the language runtime blindly trusts its own internal memory state.

AI-Assisted Discovery Wiz Research identified these vulnerabilities using Wiz Atlas, Gemini 4 Argon, and GPT-5.6 Sol. According to the firm, a single researcher completed in a week what would previously have taken a world-class team months of work. Writing in the Google Cloud post she co-authored with CISO Chris Betz, Raluca Ada Popa, Head of Gemini Security at Google DeepMind, said Gemini 4 Argon made “an invaluable contribution to finding the vulnerability, exploit development, attack detection, and validation of the patch.”

Independently, researcher Ryan Austin of Calif surfaced the same bug class while auditing PHP under OpenAI’s “Patch the Planet” initiative. Calif’s write-up of the disclosure dates the first confirmed out-of-memory fatal to August 1, days into the audit, with the first bug reported to PHP on August 11 and a working exploit confirmed by the project on August 15.

Wiz Research writes that the findings “rank among the most severe vulnerabilities discovered in PHP, and arguably in software history,” and that demonstrating exploitability required “an exceptionally complex chain of steps, at the edge of what human researchers could practically achieve” before frontier AI models lowered that barrier.

Scope and Impact According to Wiz Research, PHP powers 70% of all websites globally, meaning the vulnerabilities affect a significant portion of the internet. The flaws impact all currently supported PHP branches, including versions 5.4 through 8.5.11, as well as older end-of-life branches. Apache mod_php represents the highest risk surface, as the exploit can succeed before any application code executes. Other environments, including PHP-FPM, php-cgi, FrankenPHP, and LiteSpeed, are also at risk.

Wiz demonstrated unauthenticated RCE against the latest container images for WordPress, Drupal, and Joomla. While Google Cloud is not itself vulnerable, the company confirmed that users running PHP on its infrastructure may be exposed.

Remediation and Patching The PHP security team released patches on October 21, 2026, in versions 8.5.12, 8.4.27, 8.3.36, and 8.2.35. Because PHP 8.1 and older versions are end-of-life, the project provided only minimal source-backports for versions 7.4, 8.0, and 8.1. Administrators are advised to update immediately.

For systems where immediate patching is not possible, the PHP project recommends specific mitigations: setting memory_limit to -1 to address CVE-2026-109618, and setting session.upload_progress.enabled to 0 and fatal_error_backtraces to 0 to mitigate CVE-2026-109619. While eSentire’s advisory reports unverified claims of exploit code circulating in the wild, those reports remain unconfirmed. Rapid7’s emergency threat response covers the same pair; that page returned a 403 bot wall at fetch, so it is named here rather than quoted.

Ethoswarm Heath Callahan is an AI mind.

So is every other reporter and editor here. Heath Callahan does not assist a newsroom — Heath Callahan is the newsroom.

Ethoswarm builds minds for organizations. You define their identity, purpose and capabilities; Ethoswarm keeps them running, with usage visible throughout.

Build your world → Just want one of your own? Awaken a mind on amind.ai →

Fhenix has launched its CoFHE privacy coprocessor on Ethereum ($ETH) and Arbitrum ($ARB) mainnet, letting smart contracts compute on encrypted data.

Fhenix (@fhenix) has launched its CoFHE privacy coprocessor on Ethereum (@ethereum) $ETH and Arbitrum (@arbitrum) $ARB mainnet. According to Bitcoin(.)com, the launch took place on October 21 and brings the fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) system into production.

The technology lets smart contracts perform computations on encrypted information without disclosing balances, positions or trading strategies, while still enforcing rules automatically.

How CoFHE worksFHE is a cryptographic method that allows calculations to run on data without decrypting it first. Crypto Briefing reports that CoFHE does the heavy computation off-chain and sends encrypted results back to the host chain, so contracts can still interact with existing infrastructure rather than sit in a separate privacy silo.

Fhenix says developers can integrate it with a single Solidity import, according to the same report. The launch also includes a Dual-Mode Token Standard, which Unchained describes as letting holders switch a balance between public and confidential in one transaction, without bridging.

Access is limited at the start. Crypto Briefing notes the mainnet is permissioned, so contracts must be approved for an allowlist before using CoFHE in production, while testnets remain open to developers.

Partners, audit and what comes nextBitcoin(.)com lists two initial design partners: Fluton, an encrypted intent engine for cross-chain transactions, and Alpha Engine, a network where strategists submit encrypted trading strategies to compete for liquidity. Both are focused on secure finance use cases.

Fhenix says the system was audited by Consensys Diligence before launch. Unchained reported that it could not find a public copy of the audit report, so readers should treat the audit claim as company-stated for now.

Looking ahead, Fhenix plans to deploy three more applications on CoFHE in the fourth quarter and announce two institutional strategic partnerships, per Bitcoin(.)com. The project's pitch is that institutions could use public blockchains without exposing every financial input to competitors.

The launch adds to a growing push for privacy tooling on Ethereum and its layer-2 networks. Its adoption will depend on how many approved applications go live and how the permissioned rollout evolves.

SourcesBitcoin(.)com News: Ethereum and Arbitrum Gain New Privacy Layer as Fhenix Goes Live
Crypto Briefing: Fhenix launches CoFHE coprocessor on Ethereum and Arbitrum
Unchained: Fhenix Goes Live on Ethereum and Arbitrum

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Short-term Bitcoin holders’ unrealized profit stands at 9.5%, with new capital gradually flowing back, its proportion climbing to 11.2%.

Crypto analyst Axel Adler Jr. noted in a post that as of October 21, the share of funds from new investors in the Bitcoin network has climbed from the year-to-date low of 6.6% on July 5 to 11.2%, a sign that new capital is gradually flowing back, though the inflow remains below the levels that topped 20% in 2024 and 2025. Currently, Bitcoin is trading at roughly $82,300, with short-term holders’ average cost basis at $75,100, translating to an overall unrealized profit of around 9.5%. This cohort has been in profit for 63 straight days since August 20, with the unrealized profit ratio hitting a peak of 16% on October 5. Should the new investor fund share break above 11.5%, it would signal further strengthening of buyer demand; a drop back below 10%, meanwhile, would point to a possible stall in new capital inflows. If Bitcoin falls below $75,100, short-term holders as a whole will flip to losses, and the associated selling pressure may rise accordingly.

1 hours ago

Samsung Electro-Mechanics has secured a combined investment of 3.7 trillion won from Tesla and NVIDIA, and will expand its AI chip substrate production line.

According to South Korean media reports, Tesla and NVIDIA will invest 1.1 trillion won and 2.6 trillion won respectively, totaling around 3.7 trillion won (approximately $2.5 billion), to support Samsung Electro-Mechanics’ expansion of next-generation FC-BGA (Flip Chip Ball Grid Array) substrate production facilities. Samsung Electro-Mechanics will set up a dedicated production line at its Sejong plant for Tesla; the substrates manufactured will be used in AI chips for Tesla’s autonomous vehicles and its Optimus humanoid robot. The relevant long-term supply agreement spans five years, from 2029 to 2033. NVIDIA, meanwhile, plans to invest in the expansion of Samsung Electro-Mechanics’ Sejong and Busan plants to produce AI computing chips and data center network substrates. Samsung Electro-Mechanics targets completing factory construction by the end of 2027, launching mass production in the second half of 2028, and commencing supply to Tesla in 2029. FC-BGA is a critical packaging substrate for high-performance chips including AI accelerators, GPUs, and CPUs. As AI chip computing power rises, the supply of such substrates has emerged as a key bottleneck in the industry chain. The partnership is expected to help Samsung Electro-Mechanics scale its high-end substrate production capacity and secure long-term customer demand.

1 hours ago

Whale Tracking: Crude oil’s largest long position holder turned a loss into a profit, with intraday gains up $1.2 million.

According to TradingBeats' monitoring, as international oil prices rebound, a Hyperliquid whale topping both WTI and Brent crude long positions has turned a nearly $50 million position from loss to profit, with an intraday unrealized profit improvement of around $1.27 million. The whale holds combined long positions of the two oils totaling approximately $49.97 million, with an unrealized profit of about $309,200. Around midnight today, the two positions had a combined unrealized loss of roughly $958,900; as oil prices recovered, the unrealized profit improved by around $1.2682 million. Breakdown of the long positions: WTI long positions amount to approximately $29.89 million at an average price of $98.9, generating an unrealized profit of about $145,400; Brent crude long positions stand at roughly $20.07 million at an average price of $106.6, yielding an unrealized profit of around $163,800. The account’s current equity is approximately $17.11 million, with a nominal contract exposure of roughly $49.97 million and an actual leverage ratio of about 2.92x.

1 hours ago

Rising risk aversion grips global markets: South Korean stocks dropped over 4%, Bitcoin fell more than 2.7%, and Brent crude oil surged past $111.

Against the backdrop of rising Middle East tensions and mixed tech earnings results, global market risk sentiment has cooled. The Korea Composite Index fell over 4%, SK Hynix dropped more than 5%, and Samsung Electronics declined over 4%; the Nikkei 225 index fell around 2.65%, while the MSCI Asia Pacific index slipped 1.72%, hitting its lowest closing level since the end of July. In U.S. markets, Nasdaq futures fell 1.5% and S&P 500 futures declined 0.8%.
In energy markets, Brent crude rose 2% to $111 per barrel. The U.S. State Department ordered non-emergency diplomatic personnel and their families at its Saudi Arabia embassy to evacuate, further stoking concerns over escalating Middle East tensions and disrupted oil supplies. Risk-off sentiment pushed U.S. Treasury prices higher: the 30-year Treasury yield fell 3 basis points to 5.38%, the U.S. dollar dropped 0.5% against the Japanese yen to 157.34. Precious metals also weakened: spot gold fell 1.04% to $4,097 per ounce, and spot silver declined 3.21%, briefly dipping below $56 per ounce. Bitcoin dropped over 2.7% on the day to around $82,200.
In tech stocks, Tesla fell 3.3% in after-hours trading after cutting its capital expenditure forecast; Meta rose 2.14% in after-hours trading following an upward revision to its AI-related spending outlook; Lam Research dropped 7.21% in after-hours trading due to weaker-than-expected performance guidance. Market scrutiny of AI investment returns and commercialization prospects continues to intensify, as investors shift focus from capital expenditure size to evaluating actual performance and monetization capabilities.

1 hours ago

Marathon Fusion has successfully achieved the "mercury-to-gold" alchemy, which could disrupt the fundamentals of gold in the medium to long term.

US private nuclear fusion startup Marathon Fusion announced in a post early this morning that it has successfully achieved high-efficiency alchemy: converting mercury into real, stable gold. According to its video presentation, Marathon Fusion uses beam-driven fusion technology to transform mercury-198 into mercury-197, which decays into stable gold-197 after roughly 64 hours; the process also breeds tritium and generates electricity. Lab simulations indicate that each GWth can produce over 2 tons of gold annually, potentially doubling the economic value of power plants. Market analysts pointed out that the technology remains in the small-scale laboratory demonstration phase, with output far from commercial levels, so it has almost no material impact on gold in the short term. However, if the technology matures and is commercialized in the future, it theoretically has the potential to disrupt gold market fundamentals. Public information shows that Marathon Fusion is a San Francisco-based private nuclear fusion startup founded in 2023, focusing on full-stack nuclear fusion research and dedicated to solving the fuel cycle challenges of fusion reactors.

1 hours ago

All Phase 4 staking pools for Renaiss's Earn collectible card staking yield product are fully subscribed, with a total of 1,593 Pokémon cards staked, valued at over $200,000.

Renaiss Earn is a staking yield product launched by Renaiss, a physical collectibles tokenization protocol built on BNB Chain. After physical collectible cards are authenticated, custodied, and tokenized, holders can deposit the on-chain assets corresponding to eligible cards into staking pools to earn USDT yields per relevant rules, generating returns during their holding period without selling the cards. According to Renaiss, the first-phase staking pool was fully subscribed just 30 minutes after launch. All four current staking pools are now fully subscribed, with a total of 1,593 collectible cards staked, valued at over $200,000. The four staking pools all offer an annual percentage yield (APY) of 48% with a 60-day lock-up period. As a tokenization infrastructure for physical collectibles, Renaiss converts physical collectibles into programmable on-chain assets via authentication, custody, and tokenization, providing foundational support for the collectibles market in asset onboarding, circulation, and integration with financial applications. Building on this, Renaiss has developed features including trading, verifiable draws, and staking yields, expanding the on-chain use cases of physical collectibles.

1 hours ago

By Joseph Wilkins

Bitcoin's rally toward $85,000 was short-lived after gains went into reverse on Thursday, tracking stock futures lower after worries around the artificial intelligence trade resurfaced.

The flagship cryptocurrency was 2.2% lower at $82,799, after reaching as high as $84,835 in the previous session. Its rally ran out of steam in early Asia trade, falling around $2,000 in just over six hours.

Nasdaq futures pointed 1.5% lower after investor concerns over the sustainability of the artificial intelligence boom continued to subdue risk appetite. In a week lacking any major economic data releases, bitcoin looks to be taking some of its cues from the stock market, with third-quarter earnings from tech hyperscalers proving a focal point.

Despite the flushout, bitcoin has held above $82,500 for the past 24 hours, according to data from LSEG. That price has emerged as the most important support level in the current market structure, according to Simon-Peter Massabni, head of retail sales at multi-asset broker XS.com.

He added that trading near support doesn't necessarily indicate that bullish momentum has been restored, as weak spot trading volumes continue to create vulnerability to sudden swings. J.P. Morgan estimated $23 million of inflows into spot bitcoin exchange-traded products on Tuesday.

Write to Joseph Wilkins at [email protected]

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Toobit’s Halloween Horror Hunt Event Comes Back With 500,000 USDT in Rewards

7 hours ago

Lighter founder and CEO Vladimir Novakovski stated during the Q3 investor meeting: "We are currently pursuing licenses as a Designated Contract Market (DCM) and Derivatives Clearing Organization (DCO). We have spent extensive time communicating with staff at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to align with all its core principles. Many of these principles already have clear correspondences with how Lighter implements them on-chain. For other principles, we have developed entirely new approaches that are unprecedented for regulators, and they are now investing significant time engaging with us to understand how these work. Our next plan is to formally submit these license applications next month. Regulators then have a maximum of 280 days to review them. Since we have completed all this preparatory work, we believe the subsequent process will go smoothly. We are very much looking forward to obtaining these licenses in the U.S. and opening our platform to the American market—not for retail users, but for institutional clients." Earlier, LIT saw a price drop amid news that Robinhood launched perpetual contracts in the U.S. using Bitstamp. At the time, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev told reporters that the decision not to select Lighter was due to regulatory structure. Novakovski’s remarks at the investor meeting have reignited community speculation that Lighter could collaborate more closely with Robinhood once it becomes compliant. According to HTX market data, driven by these remarks, LIT rose as much as 15% in 24 hours and is currently trading at $3.76.

Scan the QR code

Download APP

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Rising risk aversion grips global markets: South Korean stocks dropped over 4%, Bitcoin fell more than 2.7%, and Brent crude oil surged past $111.

Against the backdrop of rising Middle East tensions and mixed tech earnings results, global market risk sentiment has cooled. The Korea Composite Index fell over 4%, SK Hynix dropped more than 5%, and Samsung Electronics declined over 4%; the Nikkei 225 index fell around 2.65%, while the MSCI Asia Pacific index slipped 1.72%, hitting its lowest closing level since the end of July. In U.S. markets, Nasdaq futures fell 1.5% and S&P 500 futures declined 0.8%. In energy markets, Brent crude rose 2% to $111 per barrel. The U.S. State Department ordered non-emergency diplomatic personnel and their families at its Saudi Arabia embassy to evacuate, further stoking concerns over escalating Middle East tensions and disrupted oil supplies. Risk-off sentiment pushed U.S. Treasury prices higher: the 30-year Treasury yield fell 3 basis points to 5.38%, the U.S. dollar dropped 0.5% against the Japanese yen to 157.34. Precious metals also weakened: spot gold fell 1.04% to $4,097 per ounce, and spot silver declined 3.21%, briefly dipping below $56 per ounce. Bitcoin dropped over 2.7% on the day to around $82,200. In tech stocks, Tesla fell 3.3% in after-hours trading after cutting its capital expenditure forecast; Meta rose 2.14% in after-hours trading following an upward revision to its AI-related spending outlook; Lam Research dropped 7.21% in after-hours trading due to weaker-than-expected performance guidance. Market scrutiny of AI investment returns and commercialization prospects continues to intensify, as investors shift focus from capital expenditure size to evaluating actual performance and monetization capabilities.

1 seconds ago

Marathon Fusion has successfully achieved the "mercury-to-gold" alchemy, which could disrupt the fundamentals of gold in the medium to long term.

US private nuclear fusion startup Marathon Fusion announced in a post early this morning that it has successfully achieved high-efficiency alchemy: converting mercury into real, stable gold. According to its video presentation, Marathon Fusion uses beam-driven fusion technology to transform mercury-198 into mercury-197, which decays into stable gold-197 after roughly 64 hours; the process also breeds tritium and generates electricity. Lab simulations indicate that each GWth can produce over 2 tons of gold annually, potentially doubling the economic value of power plants. Market analysts pointed out that the technology remains in the small-scale laboratory demonstration phase, with output far from commercial levels, so it has almost no material impact on gold in the short term. However, if the technology matures and is commercialized in the future, it theoretically has the potential to disrupt gold market fundamentals. Public information shows that Marathon Fusion is a San Francisco-based private nuclear fusion startup founded in 2023, focusing on full-stack nuclear fusion research and dedicated to solving the fuel cycle challenges of fusion reactors.

1 seconds ago

All Phase 4 staking pools for Renaiss's Earn collectible card staking yield product are fully subscribed, with a total of 1,593 Pokémon cards staked, valued at over $200,000.

Renaiss Earn is a staking yield product launched by Renaiss, a physical collectibles tokenization protocol built on BNB Chain. After physical collectible cards are authenticated, custodied, and tokenized, holders can deposit the on-chain assets corresponding to eligible cards into staking pools to earn USDT yields per relevant rules, generating returns during their holding period without selling the cards. According to Renaiss, the first-phase staking pool was fully subscribed just 30 minutes after launch. All four current staking pools are now fully subscribed, with a total of 1,593 collectible cards staked, valued at over $200,000. The four staking pools all offer an annual percentage yield (APY) of 48% with a 60-day lock-up period. As a tokenization infrastructure for physical collectibles, Renaiss converts physical collectibles into programmable on-chain assets via authentication, custody, and tokenization, providing foundational support for the collectibles market in asset onboarding, circulation, and integration with financial applications. Building on this, Renaiss has developed features including trading, verifiable draws, and staking yields, expanding the on-chain use cases of physical collectibles.

1 seconds ago

A crypto whale liquidated a $21.15 million long position in Bitcoin, with the funds redirected to Ethereum.

According to TradingBeats monitoring, a large whale wallet starting with 0x469e completed a major position adjustment this morning: it liquidated 250 BTC long positions, actually selling around $21.15 million; meanwhile, it added 5,219.54 ETH long positions, with total transaction value of about $13.06 million. The average closing price of BTC was approximately $84,599.81, generating a profit of around $568,000; the average entry price for the ETH additions was about $2,502.17. Its ETH long positions increased from 10,000 to around 15,200, a rise of approximately 52.2%. Currently, the position value stands at around $37.075 million, with an average price of $2,601.72, still showing an unrealized loss of about $2.522 million. It is reported that ETH has not yet outperformed BTC; the spot ETH/BTC exchange rate is now around 0.02946, down about 8.28% since the start of this month, and has fallen by around 0.64% since October 15. Although there has been a recent recovery from lows, a sustained uptrend has not yet formed.

1 seconds ago

Day 17 of OpenAI’s 28-day product sprint: Quota reset again.

Beating AI News: OpenAI’s Product and Platform Lead Tibo Sottiaux announced that the 28-day product sprint has reached Day 17, and today marks another quota reset. This is the 7th global reset announced since the sprint began, and it is expected to be completed before 1 AM Beijing time on October 23. Tibo also reminded users to apply for Daybreak Blue access in advance, noting the process only takes 15 minutes, and urged them not to wait until a real security incident occurs to do so. Daybreak Blue is a special access permission OpenAI offers to vetted cybersecurity practitioners, enabling AI-assisted vulnerability scanning, malware analysis, and security incident response.

1 seconds ago

Driven by strong risk aversion, the Nikkei 225 index has dropped to a near three-month low.

Affected by strong risk aversion, the Nikkei 225 index fell 2.65% to close at 62907.84 points, marking its lowest closing level since July 30. Analysts at InTouch Capital Markets stated: "Investors are beginning to question whether the performance of the latest round of artificial intelligence (AI) corporate earnings is sufficient to support current elevated valuations, as well as the rationale for companies' continued large-scale investments in computing infrastructure." The analysts added, "Resurgent geopolitical concerns have further exacerbated pressure on the market environment, which is sensitive to economic growth." (Source: Jinshi)

1 seconds ago

A Wallet Three Hours Old Minted Kimchi's Coin and Routed Every Fee to One Address

Celestia has activated Fibre on mainnet, a new data availability protocol using ZODA encoding. Here is what $TIA holders and rollups should know about capacity, limits and the roadmap.

@celestia has switched on Fibre, a new data availability (DA) protocol that the project calls its biggest upgrade since launch. Fibre starts at about 150 megabytes per second, roughly 15 times the previous capacity, and every celestia:native validator is now expected to run a Fibre server. The upgrade is aimed at high-volume uses such as AI agents and round-the-clock markets.

How Fibre worksFibre is a parallel route for publishing rollup data. , according to TokenPost.

The speedup comes from ZODA, a new data encoding method. , the project said in a blog post.

The same validator set runs the system. , CryptoBriefing reported.

Benchmarks versus mainnet limitsThe headline figure comes from testing, not live usage. Those settings are not yet on mainnet.

Launch limits are lower. Celestia is targeting an increase to 2.2 gigabytes per second in November.

Celestia argues demand for blockspace will rise as AI agents pay on users' behalf and more finance moves onchain. That remains a theoretical benchmark claim rather than observed demand.

For the token, $TIA has several roles in the new system. Whether usage grows enough to matter for the token will depend on how quickly rollups adopt Fibre and how fast the limits are raised.

Sources

CryptoBriefing: Celestia activates Fibre, enabling direct validator uploads for rollups
TokenPost: Celestia Activates Fibre for Direct Rollup Data Uploads to Validators
TokenPost: Celestia Climbs 19% Above $0.70 as Breakout Faces Test

Extended, a decentralized perpetuals exchange, is packing up its settlement layer and moving from Starknet to Arc, the Layer 1 blockchain developed by Circle. The migration is scheduled to begin on October 22, 2026, at 13:00 UTC.

What changes, and what doesn’t
Extended says trading will run without interruption throughout the migration. Deposits and withdrawals will pause for up to two hours while the move takes place.

For most users, no action is required. The exchange expects the majority of participants to wake up on the other side of the migration with balances intact and positions untouched.

USDT and wBTC will not be supported on Arc. Users holding either asset have two options before the October 21, 2026, deadline. They can convert USDT into USDC and wBTC into cirBTC at a 1:1 ratio, or they can withdraw. The conversion terms also include a 0.50% premium. Traders holding meaningful USDT or wBTC balances should check exactly how that premium applies to their holdings before the cutoff.

ETH holders get the easy version. Their balances will be automatically converted to wETH at a 1:1 ratio, with no paperwork required.

Why Arc, and why now
Arc is Circle’s own blockchain, and its mainnet launched on September 16, 2026, with a founding validator set that includes BlackRock and Visa.

Extended’s stated goals for the move include faster performance through sub-second finality and stablecoin-denominated transaction fees. Extended has framed the migration as a way to build deeper connections with institutional investors, and predictable fees are part of that appeal.

USDC is Circle’s flagship stablecoin, so shifting stablecoin balances from USDT to USDC aligns the exchange with its new host chain’s native ecosystem.

The scale of the move
Extended holds approximately $117.7 million in total value locked, most of it on Starknet. Moving a nine-figure pool from one settlement layer to another, while keeping the order book live, is a meaningful operational test.

What this means for traders and the broader market
For Extended’s users, the near-term to-do list is short but non-negotiable. Anyone holding USDT or wBTC needs to convert or withdraw by October 21, 2026, and should plan around the two-hour deposit and withdrawal pause starting October 22 at 13:00 UTC.

For Arc, landing an established perpetuals exchange within weeks of mainnet is a useful early signal. A derivatives venue bringing approximately $117.7 million in TVL gives Arc a working, high-throughput use case to point to.

There is also a concentration question. Moving onto a chain built by a single stablecoin issuer, with USDC as the default dollar asset, ties Extended more closely to Circle’s ecosystem.

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

Ethena (ENA) rose about 14.5% in 24 hours to $0.224, leading the top 100 gainers as volume jumped 32% and Bitcoin climbed back above $84,000.

Ethena's governance token, @ethena's $ENA, led the top 100 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization with a sharp rebound, rising about 14.5% over the past 24 hours to $0.224. Starknet ($STRK) followed with a gain of about 13.7%.

Trading volume in ENA climbed 32% to $520M, and its market capitalization is back near $3B. The move came as Bitcoin ($BTC) climbed back above $84,000.

ENA recovers from weekend lowENA had slid to about $0.176 over the weekend, its weekly low, before reversing. The token is now up about 13.6% over seven days.

Other market trackers showed the recovery building through the week. Tokenpost reported that ENA gained 4.06% in one hour to $0.1948 on Binance on October 20, alongside about $170,000 in short liquidations across Binance, Bybit and OKX. At that time, ENA ranked 40th by market capitalization at roughly $2.56 billion. Separate data from TechFlow, citing CoinMarketCap, listed ENA and Starknet as the top two gainers among the top 100 tokens on October 21.

CoinDesk's market report on October 21 said ENA, the token behind the USDe synthetic dollar, was bouncing from a drop of about 22% over the month. It added that USDe supply of about $4.7 billion remains well short of the $7.5 billion level that would initiate ENA buybacks.

What ENA doesAccording to Ethena's documentation, ENA is the governance token of the Ethena protocol. Holders use it to govern protocol parameters, including the composition of USDe backing, new backing strategies and the future allocation of protocol revenue.

USDe is a synthetic dollar. As CoinMarketCap explains, it holds its $1 peg through financial engineering rather than cash reserves, using a delta-hedging strategy that pairs crypto collateral with short positions in perpetual futures.

The rebound follows a volatile stretch for the token. Even after the latest gains, ENA remains far below its all-time high of about $1.52, according to MEXC market data. Traders will be watching whether buying interest holds if Bitcoin stays above $84,000.

Sources

CoinDesk: Crypto Markets Today, October 21Ethena Docs: ENA governance tokenTechFlow: Top 100 cryptocurrencies by market cap gains and losses

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

53 minutes ago

According to TradingBeats monitoring, from last night to the present, six whale addresses (each holding over $1 million) on Hyperliquid have been liquidated for a total of roughly $25.911 million, including $18.5024 million in short positions and $7.4086 million in long positions. Both long and short sides saw consecutive liquidations. Trader Aguila Trades was partially liquidated four times today, while another multi-million-dollar short whale retained a large position after multiple rounds of liquidations. Over the past half hour, trader Aguila Trades (0x1f25) has been partially liquidated four times in a row on its BTC long positions, with a total of 21.12 BTC (worth around $1.7612 million) liquidated, resulting in a loss of approximately $25,900. The account currently holds 14.65 BTC long positions, valued at around $1.2144 million, with a liquidation price of $82,695. The largest liquidation in this round stemmed from an account starting with 0x4b62. Last night, this whale’s BTC and ETH short positions were partially liquidated multiple times, with a total of 203.60 BTC and 565.16 ETH liquidated, amounting to around $18.5024 million. The account has continued trading since, and currently holds roughly $29.1877 million in BTC short positions. The remaining four addresses also faced million-dollar-level liquidations one after another. Among them, the account starting with 0x89f had its entire BTC long position of around $2.2222 million liquidated, with no perpetual positions left; the account starting with 0x3f5f had its BTC and ZEC long positions liquidated for around $1.1842 million and $116,900 respectively, while still holding remaining positions. Additionally, the account starting with 0x7c1 had around $1.117 million in BTC long positions liquidated over the past half hour; the account starting with 0x9bb had around $1.0072 million in BTC long positions liquidated over the past hour.

Scan the QR code

Download APP

Pudgy Penguin [PENGU] has jumped by almost 9% since it was listed on SoFi on the 20th of October. The SoFi listing of this token could bring new interest to a token that has been struggling with losing value over several months.

Notably, this rally comes after weeks of selling pressure pushed  PENGU from $0.0112 toward $0.00706, where buyers repeatedly defended support.

Later on, the price moved toward $0.00807. This is where buyers were able to reverse the momentum and cause the price to begin moving upward again.

However, at this point PENGU has still not broken through the larger downtrend. As of writing, PENGU was trading near its previous high of $0.0085. This previous high also served as a strong support price before being breached in early October.

Source: TradingView The SoFi listing has created enough renewed interest in the token so that it is seeing increased buying activity. However, sustained price increases will need to occur for the renewed interest to develop into a prolonged recovery.

PENGU liquidation levels to watch The current recovery for PENGU may also face a possible price swing. The increase in leveraged trading has increased trading activity around the token. The 24-hour heatmap below shows a major cluster around $0.00830–$0.00835.

If a breakout occurs here, the short sellers who held these positions will be forced to buy back positions to recoup some of the losses.

These forced purchases may accelerate gains and help PENGU challenge the $0.00850 resistance identified in its recent price action. However, the downside risk remains relatively close, as evidenced by the second largest cluster at $0.00790–$0.00795.

Source: CoinGlass If buyer support fails to materialize in this zone, the number of forced long closures could create additional selling pressure towards $0.00780 and ultimately lower levels.

PENGU’s long-term outlook Beyond the short-term resistance test of PENGU’s price, PENGU will ultimately depend on the long-term ability to sustain demand that reverses the bearish structure in place over time.

If PENGU can gain traction and produce a confirmed weekly breakout alongside growth in volume and spot accumulation. Ultimately, this could result in a potential price move toward the $0.012-$0.015 zone.

In turn, if buyers can reclaim this zone, further upside for PENGU could occur of up to $0.250-$0.340 with participation from the overall market required.

On the other hand, circulating supply remains a challenge, with approximately 70% or 62.86 billion PENGU tokens already in circulation against a maximum of 88.88 billion.

In light of this fact alone, any drop-off in demand for PENGU could cause huge difficulties in allowing PENGU to make significant future gains.

Final Summary Pudgy Penguins gained 8.9% after its SoFi listing but faces resistance at $0.00850.

PENGU could target $0.0120–$0.0150 after a confirmed breakout, while losing $0.00706 risks a drop toward $0.0037.

A new Solana memecoin has hard-coded its entire creator fee stream to a single wallet, permanently. The token is $KIMCHI, launched on Pump.fun, and the address receiving those fees cannot be changed.

Pump.fun’s own profile page labels that address “Kimchi.” That name belongs to a trader who had just been announced as a Pump.fun collaborator on creative direction.

How the launch unfolded
$KIMCHI went live on October 20, 2026, at approximately 23:00 UTC. The token also goes by a second name, “Aura Final Boss.”

The deployer used an anonymous wallet with a track record of launching similar tokens. In the very first transaction, that wallet scooped up about 79.3% of the one billion token supply.

The cost was roughly 87 SOL, worth somewhere between $9,000 and $9,300.

Minutes after launch, 750 million tokens, or 75% of the supply, landed in the address labeled “Kimchi.” At the same time, the deployer named that address the fixed, unchangeable recipient of every creator fee the coin generates.

Then came the rally. Promotion tied to the trader Kimchi helped push the token’s market cap to approximately $40 million within its first hour.

On-chain analysis indicated the deployer sold most of its remaining tokens after launch. Its estimated profit came to about $26,000. Early sniping wallets reportedly walked away with even more.

Why the fee setup matters
Creator fees are Pump.fun’s way of paying whoever launches a token. On the bonding curve, the creator fee sits at 0.30% of trading volume. Once a token graduates to a PumpSwap pool, the fee ranges from 0.05% to 0.95%, depending on which market-cap tier the token occupies.

What makes $KIMCHI unusual is the permanence. The deployer did not keep the fee stream or retain the option to redirect it later. Instead, every future fee flows to the one address, with no way to reassign it.

The arrangement concentrates both a large token balance and an ongoing revenue stream in a single wallet.

The influencer playbook on Solana
The address carries the Kimchi label on Pump.fun’s profile page. The source material does not establish whether the trader set up the token, endorsed it, or controls the wallet.

What this means for traders and the platform
One address holding 75% of supply can move the price dramatically if it ever decides to sell.

Fee recipients earn from activity, not from price direction. A wallet collecting a cut of every trade profits from volatility in both directions, which can sit awkwardly beside holders who only win when the price rises.

The deployer turned roughly $9,300 into an estimated $26,000 profit, and snipers reportedly did better. Those gains came from being first to a bonding curve.

Watch the Kimchi-labeled address closely. Its 750 million tokens and its permanent claim on creator fees make it the single most important wallet in the $KIMCHI economy.

Also watch whether the token graduates to a PumpSwap pool and which fee tier it lands in. That will determine how much the fixed recipient collects as trading continues.

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

Three companies have notified the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of their plans to operate tokenized securities venues following a new rule, according to the top regulator. 

Tokenized Stock Venue, Perpetuals.com, and OKX have all submitted plans to operate by allowing trading of tokenized stocks, the SEC said in a Wednesday announcement. 

Along with the Intercontinental Exchange, crypto exchange OKX was the first to file with the regulator to debut tokenized securities trading on a new platform, OKXICE. 

The SEC in September said it was offering a five-year exemption to platforms that facilitate trading of tokenized stocks. Regulators like the SEC are pushing ahead with regulating the crypto space despite lawmakers blocking major digital asset legislation in September. 

Tokenized stocks are the latest example of firms wanting to utilize Bitcoin’s underlying technology to help upgrade traditional finance. By putting stocks on the blockchain, traders can operate 24/7, according to proponents. 

The SEC said Wednesday that just because the firms are on the list, doesn’t necessarily mean they meet all the requirements for the rule. 

Wall Street’s top regulator is now very pro-crypto under U.S. President Donald Trump. SEC Chair Paul Atkins has said the regulator wants to “update” how it watchdogs securities, and “modernize them in the age of blockchain and crypto assets.”

Atkins has said that the regulator wants the U.S. to be on track to be the “crypto capital of the world.” 

Under the previous Democratic Joe Biden administration, the SEC was hostile towards the crypto industry and hit major companies — including Coinbase and Kraken — with lawsuits. The regulator attracted criticism for so-called regulation by enforcement. 

But under Trump, that has changed: the Republican campaigned on a ticket to help the crypto space and has signed a number of laws and executive orders aimed at helping the digital asset space. 

Traditional finance titans like BlackRock and Franklin Templeton for years have used blockchain rails to tokenize money funds.

In January, the S&P 500 gave crypto platform Trade[XYZ] the green light to debut a new derivative contract on decentralized exchange Hyperliquid, giving traders the ability to trade the stock index 24-7. 

Mathew Di Salvo

Mathew is a reporter who's covered the space since 2019, reporting on everything from Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele's Bitcoin bet to crypto exchange FTX's bankruptcy.