Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Pump.fun [PUMP] breached the $0.006 support and was trading around $0.0055, down 7.2% on the daily charts, at press time. Over the same period, the altcoin’s trading volume dropped 20% to $427 million, reflecting a slowdown in market activity.

PUMP’s long liquidations exceed $5M Pump.fun‘s price drop pushed many bulls out of the market. CoinGlass data showed that $5.09 million worth of long positions were liquidated.

Usually, higher long liquidations add selling pressure to an already falling market, causing further price declines. This can trigger a cascade of liquidations.

At the same time, increased liquidation risk can cause a shift in sentiment, forcing traders to panic-close their positions.

In fact, this market behavior was widely observed over the past 24 hours. PUMP’s futures recorded $445 million in outflows compared to $418 million in inflows.

Source: CoinGlass As a result, Futures Netflow dropped 98% to -$27 million. The negative Netflow suggested that more capital flowed out of the futures market than entered it, potentially reflecting traders closing positions to cash out or avoid further losses.

Spot sellers are not left behind On the Spot side, selling pressure was even more intense. According to Coinalyze data, the altcoin recorded 11.4 billion in Spot Sell Volume compared to 10.8 billion in Buy Volume.

Source: Coinalyze As a result, the Buy Sell Delta fell to 600 million, reflecting strong spot selling pressure. Exchange activity is also recorded for this selling activity, especially over a 12-hour timeframe. 

Over this period, PUMP saw $11.47 million in Spot inflows compared to $9.8 million in outflows. Moreover, Spot Netflow rose 148% to $1.6 million, a significant reversal from $1.6 the previous day. 

Historically, intense selling pressure has preceded further market weakness, leading to lower prices.

Can PUMP withstand the selling pressure? Structurally, PUMP has been weakened by intense market pressure. Notably, the MACD formed a bearish crossover and dropped to 0.00005 as of writing.

The crossover confirmed increasing selling pressure and strengthening downside momentum as buyers lost control.

Source: TradingView Likewise, the Stochastic Momentum Index (SMI) dropped to 22, reinforcing the bearish outlook.

These indicators point to a strengthening downtrend and a potential continuation. Thus, if the bearish pressure seen on the daily charts persists, we could see PUMP drop below $0.005 toward $0.0046.

However, if reduced leverage eases market volatility, the altcoin could hold above $0.005 and potentially reclaim $0.006.

Final summary Pump.fun declined 7%, breached the $0.006 support, and fell to a low of $0.0052 amid intense selling pressure PUMP’s price drop triggered over $5 million in liquidations on the long side. 

Blockchain

9 October 2026 | 12:33 Mastercard is among the partners for an XRP Ledger hackathon in New York, where developers will spend 36 hours building AI-payment, lending and protocol tools ahead of Ripple’s Swell conference.

Key Takeaways Mastercard is a partner in the October 24-25 XRPL hackathon. Teams will build AI-payment, lending and protocol tools. The event has not announced a new Mastercard product on XRPL. Public code, pilots and follow-up support will show the event’s real impact. Mastercard is joining a builder weekend in New York XRPL Commons lists Mastercard among the partners for its AI & Fintech XRPL Hackathon in Midtown Manhattan on October 24–25. Ripple, AWS, Ledger and Quicknode are also involved in the 36-hour event, which offers more than $40,000 in prizes and brings developers, product leads, designers and finance professionals together before Ripple’s Swell conference.

Confirmed

Mastercard is listed as an event partner. The event covers AI finance, lending and protocol work. Mastercard is named among the organizations on the final judging panel. Still unconfirmed

A Mastercard payment product on XRPL. Commercial deployment of a winning project. New card-network support for XRP through this event. AI payments create a control problem before they create a payment product The event’s agentic-finance track focuses on software that can pay, earn and transact on-chain. An AI agent could buy data, pay for computing capacity or settle a small invoice without a person approving every routine action.

Giving an agent the ability to pay also creates a control problem. A business needs to decide what it can spend, which recipients it can use and how an unsafe instruction can be stopped before money moves. XRPL’s developer tools already address part of that challenge by separating payment creation from the wallet authority needed to sign and submit a transaction.

Teams can use the weekend to turn those controls into working payment flows. A prototype may prove that an agent can pay for a service; a usable product must also show who approves the limits and how those limits are enforced.

Lending and protocol tools fill out the financial workflow AI payments are only one part of the program. The lending-and-borrowing category invites teams to build around the proposed XRP Ledger Lending Protocol and Single Asset Vaults, while the protocol-innovation track covers amendments, client implementations and developer tools. A fourth open track leaves room for projects that do not fit the other categories.

A company using an automated payment tool may also need working capital, limits on collateral use and a way to verify that a counterparty is approved. That is why the event combines payments with lending, vaults and core protocol work instead of treating an on-chain transfer as the whole financial product.

Mastercard’s stablecoin work gives the event a wider context Mastercard has a separate reason to follow this work closely. In June, it announced expanded settlement options involving regulated stablecoins, including RLUSD. That announcement did not create the hackathon or commit Mastercard to any project built there, but it places the company’s event role within a wider effort to explore programmable settlement.

The real test begins after the judging ends The hackathon can produce demos, prototypes and new developer connections. The first signs of lasting progress will come afterward: public code, teams that continue building, grants, pilots and follow-up support from Mastercard or the other partners.

That evidence will show whether the projects developed in New York can meet the security, compliance and user-control standards required beyond the crypto industry.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment or legal advice. Event partnerships and developer projects do not guarantee commercial deployment.

Author

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

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

D-Day is finally here and in a few hours the Batch amendment and its fix fixBatchV1_2 will be live. The XRP ecosystem will see a triumph in the launch of the Batch feature, which has had its share of setbacks in the past.

On February 19, 2026, security researchers and Cantina AI identified a critical logic bug in the signature-validation process of the original Batch amendment. The amendment was in its voting phase and had not been activated on Mainnet.

XRPLD v3.3.0 shipped a replacement amendment, Batch V1.1, that introduced the corrected implementation. The main focus was bug-fixing and further hardening the implementation.

HOT Stories

Fast forward to September 2026, and Batch had secured a majority and was about to go live on Mainnet on September 29, 2026. This timing shifted after the amendment was temporarily rejected to restart the two-week activation window.

A minor issue was detected and the fix was included in the XRPLd 3.4.1 release; the XRP community flipped their votes to allow Batch to simultaneously launch with its fix update.

You Might Also Like

The Batch amendment remains significant as it is a prerequisite or accelerant for several high-value XRPL use cases already under contract or in active pipeline, including atomic multi-party settlements.

Batch is also expected to support ecosystem growth, being one of the most requested features by XRPL application developers and the community broadly.

In a separate development, Permission Delegation went live on the XRP Ledger on October 8, 2026, marking a major milestone for the network.

RippleX's Shota Natenadze noted that Permission Delegation, Dynamic MPTs, Atomic Batch, Confidential Transfers, and Sponsored Fees take XRPL from tokenizing to moving value the way institutions need.

XRP price awaits moveAt the time of writing, XRP was down 0.44% in the last 24 hours to $1.39, awaiting its next move following yesterday's sharp drop. Cryptocurrencies slid late Thursday after Fed minutes showed most officials expected another rate hike before year-end.

You Might Also Like

XRP fell sharply to $1.31 on Thursday, marking four days of decline from a high of $1.52 on October 5, 2026. The price drop saw XRP trade below the daily MA 50 for the first time since August 19.

A rebound will see XRP attempt to recover above the daily MA 50, currently at $1.43, while a further drop might see XRP price test support at the daily MA 200 at $1.28.

Ethereum, the world’s second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, has dropped back to the $2,500 range following several days of selling pressure fueled by rising US Treasury yields, a stronger dollar, and weakening institutional inflows.

Sharp price pullback as technicals weakenOn October 9, ETH traded near $2,500 after briefly sliding to around $2,408 the previous Thursday, marking an almost 9% decline from recent highs above $2,700 earlier this week. This downturn follows back-to-back declines of 4% and 4.5% on consecutive trading days, which erased most of Ethereum’s October gains.

The rapid drop has left Ethereum’s immediate technical outlook under pressure. Analysts noted the $2,500 zone had already been highlighted as a key vulnerability, especially after approximately $165 million in leveraged long positions were liquidated during the recent selloff.

If Ethereum fails to hold above $2,500, trader focus may shift to the next support area in the $2,400 to $2,450 zone, given that ETH touched a session low of $2,408 on Thursday, indicating buyers are being tested at those levels.

Exchange balances for Ethereum have dropped to multi-year lows, with supply now tightly linked to institutional flows and investor demand as staking and withdrawals steadily reduce available coins on the market.

ETF outflows contrast with Bitcoin inflowsUS-listed spot Ethereum exchange-traded funds (ETFs) saw net outflows of $201.9 million on October 6, marking the largest single-day withdrawal in recent weeks. In contrast, Bitcoin spot funds recorded net inflows of $118.8 million in the same trading session, highlighting a shift in institutional capital between the two largest crypto assets.

AssetETF Net Flows (Oct. 6)Recent Price LevelEthereum (ETH)-$201.9 million$2,500Bitcoin (BTC)+$118.8 millionNot specifiedIndustry observers have indicated that Ethereum’s bullish narrative relies increasingly on institutional demand to absorb circulating supply, at a time when staking and exchange withdrawals have driven available liquid supply to multi-year lows.

The ongoing slide in exchange balances for Ethereum continues to raise questions about whether institutional buyers will step in to offset retail and speculative selling, especially as macroeconomic pressures remain a headwind for risk assets.

Traders are closely monitoring the $2,500 to $2,400 range for signs of buying support or a potential continuation of the current downtrend.

Mini dictionary: Spot ETF, an exchange-traded fund that aims to directly track the price of the underlying asset such as Bitcoin or Ethereum, allowing investors to gain exposure without directly owning the cryptocurrency itself.

Renowned crypto investment firm Fidelity has continued to expand its crypto portfolio, adding more Bitcoin amid growing demand for its ETF product.

Apart from its Bitcoin fund, the firm also issues both Ethereum and Solana ETFs, and it has recorded modest purchases for both over the same period.

Fidelity buys $354 million of Bitcoin Latest onchain data from Arkham Intelligence shows that Fidelity has purchased a total of $438.9 million worth of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana through its ETF products over the past 20 trading days.

HOT Stories

While this signals continued buying activity across the three major crypto assets, it shows that the firm has seen sustained demand for nearly all its crypto ETF offerings, especially Bitcoin.

You Might Also Like

Nonetheless, the data shows that the firm saw more demand for its Bitcoin product, as the Fidelity spot Bitcoin ETF recorded the largest purchases.

As such, FBTC has accumulated up to $354.1 million worth of BTC over the stated period. Meanwhile, it acquired only lesser amounts of ETH and SOL.

More specifically, Fidelity has bought $66.6 million worth of Ethereum and another $18.2 million worth of Solana over the same period. 

Bitcoin loses momentum While the massive Bitcoin purchase from Fidelity signals sustained institutional demand for the leading crypto asset over the past week, Bitcoin has suddenly witnessed a sharp price reversal.

Retracing from a high of around $87,000 back to its multi-week low of around $81,000, Bitcoin appears to be facing increased sell-off pressure from traders, especially retail traders.

With momentum on the leading asset currently down, it remains uncertain whether Fidelity and other major Bitcoin funds will be able to sustain their Bitcoin buying spree for much longer.

Cardano (ADA) price is down 4.84% to trade at $0.239 at press time. ADA is now down 14% since October 6, with this drop pushing the altcoin’s funding rate to its lowest level since late June.

However, while Cardano price is falling, the number of active addresses is rising amid multiple developments on the network.

Cardano’s Funding Rate Falls as Short Positions Dominate Data from CoinGlass shows that the Cardano funding rate has dropped to -0.0183%. This is the lowest funding rate reading for ADA since late June 2026. ‘

A negative funding rate shows that short sellers are paying long buyers to keep their positions open. This highlights a bearish Cardano future outlook where most traders are betting on a decline.

(Source: CoinGlass) The long/short reading of 0.89 further supports this bearish positioning, as it shows that there are more short accounts than long accounts.

Cardano’s open interest had also dropped by 10% at the time of writing to $526 million. The OI is now at its lowest reading since late September as futures traders shy away from opening new positions despite rising whale activity.

Network Activity Spikes Amid Major Network Update Data from Santiment shows that Cardano’s daily active addresses rose to 27,500 on October 7 and 27,200 on October 8. The data shows that this is a 1.7 times jump from September’s average.

Santiment notes that this increase does not stem from the selloff across the crypto market because Bitcoin’s and Ethereum’s active addresses are still within their September averages.

(Source: Santiment) However, the surge coincides with the launch of the CIP-0113 token standard on the Cardano mainnet on October 7.

This update seeks to bring regulated finance into Cardano where stablecoin and asset issuers can create compliance rules into native Cardano tokens, including Know Your Customer (KYC), sanctions screening and freeze controls.

Cardano Price Prediction as Bears Eye Drop Below $0.20 Cardano price has been moving within an ascending parallel channel on the one-week chart. The price has now dropped to test support at the midline of this pattern, and if it breaks, it could move below the psychological support of $0.20.

The RSI has dropped to 50, suggesting that the momentum is now neutral after bears lost their grip. A drop in this RSI line to below 50 will confirm that ADA price could edge lower.

The ADX line is also tipping south and remains below 50, which shows that the uptrend shown in the rising channel is weak.

(Source: TradingView) However, if the sentiment across the broader crypto market improves and Cardano price breaks resistance at $0.25, it may move to the next target at the 78.6% Fib of $0.328.

The Chainlink [LINK] Cross-Chain Interoperability Program (CCIP) version 2.0 was released on the 28th of September. The groundwork for its Q4 cycle was laid, it was reported. Yet, the LINK price is down 8.12% from the $14.02 daily session open on the same day.

Moreover, the price drawdown was part of the wider crypto market sell-off. Chainlink crypto maintained its bullish overall trend, but investors were not extremely enthusiastic about the immediate bullish prospects.

Though the CCIP represented a sturdier bridge, the altcoin is also subject to macro conditions and LINK-specific sentiment shifts.

A call for a Chainlink crypto dump Source: Ali Martinez on X A crypto analyst observed that Chainlink crypto was breaking below the neckline of a head-and-shoulders pattern it had formed on the 4-hour timeframe.

If LINK continued to trade below $13.56, the chances of a continued price move down toward $12.39 and $11.98 remained likely.

Towards the end of September, the chances of a Chainlink rally beyond $15 were good. However, the altcoin fell below a rising trendline support from mid-September, shifting its short-term bias bearishly.

Source: LINK/USDT on TradingView On the daily timeframe, the swing structure was bullish. The $12 area was key, with multiple candlewicks to it over the past two weeks. It is possible that LINK would dip briefly below $12 to sweep the liquidation levels below before recovering.

The A/D indicator continued to show buyers were dominant. The Awesome Oscillator highlighted some short-term bearish momentum, but the indicator remained above zero to showcase overall bullishness.

Should Chainlink traders wait? Source: LINK/USDT on TradingView The 4-hour timeframe’s structure shifted bearishly when the $13.47 swing low (dotted cyan) was breached a few days ago. The technical indicators showed heightened sell pressure and downward momentum in October.

Notably, a deeper retracement toward the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement level at $11.72 was possible. Moreover, buyers can wait for a positive price reaction from $11.72-$12.0 before looking to buy.

Final Summary The CCIP 2.0 upgrade introduced in late September fueled a price move to $15.77, but LINK has since retraced by 18.4%. The higher-timeframe Chainlink crypto price bias was bullish, but the altcoin was affected by October’s market-wide correction.

681 Large Transactions in a Single DayChainlink (@chainlink) recorded a notable spike in large-holder activity on Oct. 8, 2026. According to on-chain analytics firm Santiment, the network logged 681 transactions worth at least $100,000 in a single day, marking the highest daily total of 2026 and the most since Nov. 19, 2025.

The figure is a meaningful step up from earlier peaks this year. For context, a prior surge in August had drawn attention when Santiment recorded 246 such transactions in a single day, which was itself described at the time as a five-month high.

What the Data Does and Does Not ShowA surge in whale-sized transactions can reflect either aggressive buying or large-scale selling, and Santiment's count does not distinguish between the two. That ambiguity is worth keeping in mind. The metric identifies abnormally high activity, not the direction of every transfer.

The broader on-chain picture heading into October has been more nuanced. Chainlink ETFs recorded zero net flows on Oct. 7, while technical indicators continued to weigh on the $LINK price. TradingView's four-hour chart showed Chaikin Money Flow at -0.14, with MACD standing at -0.270, below its signal line, pointing to selling pressure.

Despite the uncertainty, Chainlink's network has continued to expand its institutional footprint. CCIP 2.0, introduced on Sept. 28, lets institutions add their own verifiers on top of Chainlink's default 16-operator network, adding built-in compliance controls and faster settlement options. The protocol currently secures more than $84 billion in cross-chain token value, according to Chainlink.

Whether the Oct. 8 transaction spike represents accumulation or distribution, it confirms that large holders are paying close attention to $LINK at current levels. Traders and investors will likely watch for follow-through in price and volume to determine which way that activity is skewed.

Sources:
Blockonomi: Chainlink Price Tests $12.80 Support as CCIP Vaults Expand Access
CryptoNews: Chainlink Shows Highest Level in 5 Months as Whale Transactions Pile Up
CoinDesk: Chainlink Launches CCIP 2.0 to Give Big Crypto Apps More Control Over Their Security

DFINITY Clears Early ICANN Hurdle for .icp Domain@dfinity's Internet Computer ($ICP) has passed an initial review stage set by @ICANN for the .icp generic top-level domain (gTLD), moving the application toward inclusion on the 2026 global sunrise registry candidate list. The milestone places the Internet Computer project among a competitive field of applicants seeking to reshape the domain name system.

The timing is significant.

Clearing the initial review is an early but meaningful step in a lengthy process. before any domain can go live.

What .icp Could Mean for the Decentralized WebThe practical implications of a live .icp domain extend well beyond a branding exercise. If the application progresses to delegation, the .icp extension would create a direct link between the traditional DNS root structure and the Internet Computer's end-to-end decentralized smart contract infrastructure. In practical terms, browser traffic could be routed directly to smart contracts and decentralized applications running on the network, removing the need for intermediary corporate web hosting or centralized domain registration services.

For a blockchain project, securing a native gTLD would represent a rare degree of legitimacy within the traditional internet governance framework.

The road ahead remains long. DFINITY's ability to sustain momentum through evaluation, any objections, and contracting stages will determine whether .icp ultimately enters the DNS root zone.

Sources:
ICANN Reveals Applications for 2026 Round of New Generic Top-Level Domains (PR Newswire)
ICANN New gTLD Program: 2026 Round (ICANN Official)
New gTLD Program (2026) Timeline and Details (ICANNWiki)

2 min read

Solana is about to halve its block times as final 200-millisecond upgrade nears. (Solana)Summary

Solana plans to reduce its target block time from 250 milliseconds to 200 milliseconds at epoch 1053 on Friday, completing a series of cuts from 400 milliseconds since August.The upgrade will create five block-production opportunities per second, potentially speeding transaction updates, while lowering each block’s computing limit to keep overall processing capacity roughly unchanged.Faster blocks could reduce transaction delays and trading exploits, but they will increase validator voting demands, strain network connections and shorten the validity window for transactions.Solana is preparing to cut the time between blocks to 200 milliseconds on Friday, completing a series of upgrades that has halved the network's target block production time since August.

The final reduction, from 250 milliseconds, is scheduled to take effect at epoch 1053, expected around 15:00 UTC, according to Anza, the developer of Solana's widely used Agave validator software.

The change would allow the blockchain to target five block-production opportunities every second, compared with 2.5 under the original 400-millisecond configuration.

A slot is the short window in which a designated validator can add transactions to the blockchain. Shorter slots mean trading applications, wallets and exchanges can receive updated information more frequently, reducing the time a submitted transaction may spend waiting to be processed.

The changes began Aug. 21, when Solana moved to 350 milliseconds, followed by reductions to 300 milliseconds on Aug. 28 and 250 milliseconds on Sept. 18.

The technical proposal, known as SIMD-0525, also limits how much computing work validators can pack into each block.

At 200 milliseconds, each block can carry a maximum of 30 million compute units, down from 37.5 million at 250 milliseconds. Blocks arrive more frequently, but each carries proportionally less work, keeping the network's theoretical processing capacity roughly unchanged.

Read More: Solana transactions just got more than 3 times bigger, narrowing the gap with Ethereum

Validators will continue producing blocks in groups of four consecutive slots. Their uninterrupted window to order transactions will consequently shrink from 1.6 seconds under the original configuration to 800 milliseconds.

That could reduce opportunities to delay transactions or exploit prices that have moved on other exchanges before Solana catches up.

The faster clock also comes with costs. Validators that submit votes on every slot will need to do so about twice as frequently as under the original configuration, increasing voting expenses and placing greater pressure on network connections.

Wallets and other applications also have less time to use a recent blockhash, a reference included in transactions to prevent them from being replayed. The shorter validity window could complicate transactions requiring manual approval or offline signatures.

Actual network performance remains a testSolana Compass data shows the previous 250-millisecond configuration delivered average slot times of approximately 266 to 269 milliseconds across recent epochs, slightly slower than its target.

The final reduction has already been deployed on Solana's testnet and devnet. Developers have said the mainnet rollout depends on network conditions, particularly the rate at which validators miss their assigned block-production opportunities.

The transition is expected to occur at the epoch 1053 boundary on Friday.

12345678910The Definitive Stablecoin Landscape Series: Asia Pacific

The Definitive Stablecoin Landscape Series: Asia Pacific

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

Sep 15, 2026

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

Why it matters:

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

THORChain has a fascinating history. It has processed an awful lot of ex-hack and ex-theft money over the years. The project lied about being decentralized for years. The leader could not appear more suspicious if he tried.

So when Bitget asked THORChain to block some addresses following an attack on Bitget and THORChain refused on technical grounds THORChain was not breaking new ground. What followed was an incredible interview with a so-called "expert" packed wall-to-wall with errors. And some technical commentary that made far more nuanced, less damning and far harder to adjudicate points. This measured commentary was also far less consequential in that the claims were not of any sort of grand illegality. They sat in stark contrast to the high profile interview riddled with problems. And most of the public chatter here is either unreasonably negative on THORChain but short on accuracy, or unreasonably positive on THORChain and also short on accuracy.

We are going to try to untangle this mess. The real story, in our view, has three essential plot points. First up: yes, THORChain was completely centralized and the team lied about this for years. Almost surely crimes were committed, even if only of the generic "unlicensed money transmission" flavour that nobody seems to care about anymore. We will sketch this a little bit below but, really, this is old news and not relevant to current activities. The team put themselves in a bad spot by lying for years.

Second: THORChain is not run by the best imaginable group of software engineers and their procedures and such look a bit sloppy. They also have a long history of security problems and some of the way they deal with their own shortcomings – they absolutely have a solid history of building defective software! – is less than ideal. This is a problem across web3 and in our view the THORChain team are no less competent than their self-described "expert" critics.

And third: the attacks on THORChain's current operation are mostly borne of ignorance, built atop falsehoods and misrepresentations, and fail to recognize that applying the same standards to other projects is to call many many large services outlaw. As we will see, if THORChain's current setup is outlaw then surely a large number of other large projects are too.

So here is a story of people that live in glass houses and seem to want to start a stone-throwing fight.

HistoryFor years THORChain had central admin keys that held pretty much arbitrary control over the platform. We published a relatively detailed technical piece in September 2024 working through much of this. To us this was old news at that time. Many of the code changes linked in that piece date to 2020 and 2021. All of that code was, and remains, public. The team lied in English about decentralization but the code was always out there.

We were not the only people to know about this of course. But it does look like nobody else ever bothered to publish an explanation that a half-technical person could actually follow.

Then in February 2025, shortly before the ByBit hack, THORChain announced it was removing these admin controls. That was an admission of sorts that they had always existed and that many accusations the platform was not decentralized were in fact correct.

Reasonable people can disagree over how long following this change it took for the admin controls to properly disappear. The THORChain network runs in epochs with governance processes that extend far longer than a single block. So this is not exactly like a Bitcoin change. And it is not even like a change to Ethereum staking or finality where 10s or 100s of blocks across minutes to maybe hours are sufficient to be sure the change has fully cleared. But this was initiated in February 2025 and was certainly well finished long before, many months before, 2026 began.

So none of the technical features of THORChain's centralized admin were relevant in September 2026. Claiming these things – which absolutely did exist for years – are relevant in a technical discussion of Bitget's request to THORChain is to admit you do not know what you are talking about. Do these prior bad acts maybe help establish a pattern of dishonesty? Sure. And it is reasonable to question if the team is lying now because the team was lying back then. But it is wrong to take proof of past lies as proof current statements are also untrue.

Current SetupTHORChain as of now is an odd system. It is sometimes accused of being a mixer. But it is not a mixer. It does not do a good job at obfuscating flows. Yes the recordkeeping is a bit messy and things could be more accessible. But all the transactions are visible and nothing like a mixer sits in the mix.

What THORChain actually provides is distance, not obfuscation. THORChain is effective for money laundering for two reasons. First, it allows transactions directly to Bitcoin where flows can then be mixed fairly easily. And second, large exchanges accept deposits from THORChain as clean in ways which frankly baffle us.

We discussed this in the New York Times in November 2025. A huge amount of ETH from the ByBit hack poured straight into THORChain. The hackers swapped to BTC and whoever they were trading with kept depositing those ETH to Binance. Presumably the hackers' trading counterparty was swapping those ETH back to BTC to reload THORChain. And round and round it went. It was easy to see this in real-time.

Binance accepted the ETH deposits from THORChain because...yeah we do not know why. As we told the New York Times "Even a bad — maybe even defective — screening tool would spot" that these were hack proceeds. But THORChain is a "legit" service and web3 does not have a problem with fund provenance from services with bad reputations so long as they are not actually mixers. Or at least that was the case in early 2025. Is it still true? We do not know. THORChain still is not a mixer but maybe some services will stop accepting inflows from there. Who knows.

Anyway, as of now THORChain is as decentralized as many other services. We will go through a bit of that shortly. But first it is worth looking at a few of the technical claims about the current setup that have been made to explore how false they are.

The Confused "Expert"First, we have an "expert" claiming THORChain is a closed-source permissioned project based on this chat excerpt:

https://x.com/tayvano_/status/2105515560935239710Important context here is that Dinosauruss is asserted to be an attacker that eventually joined THORChain as a node operator and successfully attacked the protocol. The chat transcript shows someone struggling to successfully join the network and asking for help on a Discord channel. This was interpreted as follows:

he was unable to churn in actually 😂 😂he tried for weeks and then he had to.......join the discordthats how you have his discord handle and id and know its himhe had to go into discord and share his addresses and info and beg to be let into the super secret room to get the real client codelmao lol hahahahhahahahaWe will take this line-by-line because it is important. The processing of "churn in" is how THORChain rotates node operators. Then we find a claim it took weeks to get the software working so they could churn in. And that they joined some Discord chats to ask for help and in fact some some help.

Finally, the claim is that this user was unable to join the network until they were allowed into a "super secret room" to get "the real client code."

If true that would be a problem. If you can only join a network by getting access to secret source code then it is not an open network. But this claim is not really true. Yes, THORChain has some odd embargo processes around security problems. But let's look at an actual release, v3.18.0, with code published May 9th, where the discussion above occurred just days before this release:

Given the dates this is the upcoming release discussed in the screenshot above.The release shipped as private binary, with the code to build the release made available at latest by May 9th and an expected production release date of May 12th. Does that mean only certain people could see the "security patches" while they were being developed? For at least some of the time yes it sure does. Does that mean less than 100% of development was done in the open? It sure does. But the code was released before production deployment. All code sits on the developers computer for some period of time before it hits the public. What matters is if the code is public before it gets put into production.

It is simply false that having some kind of security embargo policy renders your project closed-source. We need only present the Linux kernel Embargoed hardware issues policy to prove this beyond all doubt. If your definition of open source excludes Linux then your definition is wrong. So security embargoes and limited periods of non-public code development are accepted. This is not even a situation where the code was released post-deployment. Yes it was not available pre-deployment for as long as it could possibly have been available but that is a far cry from a process where one must "beg to be let into the super secret room to get the real client code."

Yes there is a little bit of complexity around the a library that does some of THORChain's internally developed cryptography. A small bit of code is, the team claims temporarily, not open source because it is security-critical and has had a lot of vulnerability problems. As discussed elsewhere in this column there are small closed-source components to many large web3 systems. And given the track record of bad security software development at THORChain the team does not have a lot of good options with respect to their vulnerable cryptography software. We view this as a minor mark against the team and anyway nothing worse than examples provided below. Once the team made the bad decision to roll their own cryptography the die was cast for problems in the general vicinity.

Now, if somebody wants to claim that web3 projects are only entitled to exemptions from various financial regulations when 100% of development is done in public they are certainly welcome to do so. But this is not only a bar far higher than that accepted by the software industry in general – it is a bar that will exclude nearly everything in web3 production use today. The expert we are addressing here works at MetaMask and as we have documented before parts of MetaMask are not open source and have been closed for years while used in production.

GoPlus's Soft Claimsweb3 security firm GoPlus published a piece claiming THORChain has never been strictly decentralized. The first clue this might be a weak argument is the use of "strictly." They did not even decide to lead with some clickbit but already took a soft position. We applaud GoPlus for being honest. And we also want to throw a little shade in their direction for making a noisy entrance without much real content.

The strictest definition of a decentralized protocol we can think of is that it is impossible for anyone to identify a sufficiently large group of participants such that it would be possible to compel the group to make changes to the protocol. In this "strict" sense Bitcoin is not decentralized because we can easily identify enough pool operators to pass 51% of the network and someone could, for example, visit their offices.

Would it be easy to force them to make some changes which are likely bad for Bitcoin? Who knows. But "strictly" can reasonably be interpreted to mean "can we get these changes put through if bring guns to a bunch of pool operators' offices and threaten to shoot them?" And then the answer is "yes." Now this would swap unlicensed money transmission for something a bit harder as the crime of interest but, again, GoPlus said "strictly." If "wrench attacks" are considered a reasonable threat model for securing self-custody then they are surely also a reasonable threat model for strict decentralization.

Most of GoPlus' specific complaints, numbered 2 through 5, all amount to "there is a smallish group that can collude to make arbitrary changes to THORChain." This is true and true of nearly every web3 project. We are not going to debate whether large mining pools render Bitcoin centralized – we are just going to say that using "strictly" as a weasel word here is a sign they know the argument is weak. Every product with a security council has this problem. In some sense everything with a multisig has this problem.

But GoPlus' first claim that "TSS vaults ≠ base-layer consensus" is worth discussing. THORChain uses a different architecture than many bridges and L2s and other things which connect blockchains to other blockchains. The Threshold Signature Scheme (TSS) used by THORChain is odd. Roughly speaking, funds within the THOR ecosystem sit within multisigs where some threshold of "validators" needs to approve outflows. GoPlus claims this is not the same as a "base layer consensus" scheme where the blockchain itself validates individual signatures and all you need to move assets is your own private key on top of a working blockchain. But validators sign blocks as produced, and blocks as produced include user transctions. Without block production transactions do not flow.

For an L1 there is a real difference in form here even if not in function. But for an L2 or a bridge or anything in that general area this is really no different than something like an odd sequencer design. A sole sequencer in an L2 is just a TSS where the threshold is the one sequencer. If you have some more distributed scheme then it is just a TSS where the T is however many parties need to approve a transaction or withdrawal. We will talk about Hyperliquid a bit below but suffice it to say Hyperliquid can be thought of as a dumb TSS too.

Now for an L1 or an L2 or a bridge is there a substantive difference between the validators having the collective ability to block or censor transactions vs a TSS where some quorum of validators need to actively approve (certain kinds of) transactions? If there is a difference it is small. But even acknowledging this is a legitimate question is to acknowledge Arbitrum, base, Hyperliquid, Polygon, Starknet and many many other projects are less decentralized than THORChain. Why? Because participating in the THORChain validation process is less gated than joining a security council or having a team-controlled emergency multisig.

Certainly THORChain is more decentralized than any of those things. There are complaints that THORChain's 100-ish nodes are really operated by only 10s of people. Maybe. Maybe not. Arbitrum froze funds using a 9-of-12 multisig. If your histrionic moaning does not even claim a T below 9 for the TSS yet you defend the Arbitrum action what are you even doing?

If anyone wants to take the position current THORChain is "clearly" an illegal custodial scheme they are arguing a huge swathe of web3 is also outlaw. We have a lot of sympathy for the last point there. A lot of the products named in the preceding paragraph, and others to boot, are in our view obviously illegal custodial schemes. And that can be true with current THORChain sitting on either side of the line. Be careful what you wish for.

ComparisonsThe best two comparisons here to show that current THORChain is not too bad are base and Hyperliquid. Is this a relativist argument? Yes. We are arguing that anyone that wants to paint current THORChain as completely beyond the pale must take the same position with respect to many other projects to reveal themselves to be a hypocrite. We expect the later to be the real explanation. But for now we will just focus on facts.

baseWe first wrote in August 2023 about base looking like a centralized, custodial system. We wrote a follow-up in July 2026 noting that essentially no progress had been made and the project's public comments over the interim 3 years admitted all our claims were true.

base's problem is that Coinbase controls all the levers and all the money. And Coinbase-controlled infrastructure not only holds all the funds in its sole custody and control, but Coinbase has actively rolled back the chain to address problems before and otherwise used its absolute central authority. Industry coverage generally acknowledges base is just a custodial service run by Coinbase with a bit of gratuitous software on top.

And the entire thing is built around a sole sequencer that needs to keep pushing out messages for bridging transactions to Ethereum to work. Yes, there are mechanisms to work around the Coinbase-operated infrastructure. But that infrastructure can also upgrade the code instantly at any time and take all the funds for itself if it wants. Coinbase has more power over base than the THORChain developers do over THORChain. It is not even close.

In THORChain the risk is the TSS does not give you your funds because the T is not met. In base the risk is that Coinbase decides it wants your money. Those are not identical but they sure are fairly similar. THORChain is, in our view, better.

HyperliquidThis one looks remarkably like THORChain only worse and more extreme. Hyperliquid takes the possible issues and oddities with THORChain and replaces them with clearly-out-of-bounds simplifications. To get your money off Hyperliquid one of the designated system validator addresses needs to approve your withdrawal through a two-step process. This is a TSS. And as discussed at that link it is a TSS gated by a permissioned set of validators.

And it gets much worse. THORChain may have some embargo issues and the processes for sharing code may not be ideal. But Hyperliquid is just straight-up closed source. There is no debate on this point: Hyperliquid's code is not available to the public.

THORChain also has some kind of strange on-chain governance processes where parameters can be changed and votes are taken and the like. We are not going to get too deeply into the details here because what really matters for the comparison is that Hyperliquid's on-chain governance is supposed to be mediated by a dispute resolution process. But that process is restricted to the team itself and approved participants. So external parties simply cannot participate at all. Again, THORChain's wonky and not-perfect schemes are clearly more open than Hyperliquid's smoke filled back room. The schemes are not even close.

One of the core complaints about THORChain quoted above, once corrected for clear errors and false statements, is that it is awfully difficult for external parties to follow along and participate because the code is often released with little notice and the system is fiddly to run. Those are real gripes and fair enough. But they are qualitatively different from a system that simply does not allow external participation at all and does not publish source code at all.

DiscussionTHORChain has a long history of misrepresenting how it works and processing funds straight out of hacks and thefts. THORChain has a lot issues. The THORChain team almost surely has open legal liability.

But that does not mean every complaint about THORChain today is accurate or reasonable. And it certainly does not mean current THORChain is a particularly outlaw product. This is not an effort to defend THORChain or apologize for past bad deeds by the team. It is just being honest about what is happening today. Does doing better today excuse past bad conduct? Not really. But again, it is only fair to attack the team for what they actually did not what you dreamed up they are still doing.

When compared against a lot of major, respected, services today current THORChain looks pretty good. This is maybe 50% because THORChain has improved a lot and 50% because a huge fraction of current services are also misrepresenting the degree to which they remain outlaw. Maybe that should be 60/40 or 20/80 or some other mix. Maybe you view the mix differently. But there is clearly a large measure of both components at play here.

Today THORChain and the team behind the project are in kind of a tough spot because of their past behaviour. Admitting you did lots of crimes before but changed the system as a way of defending against allegations you are criming today...that has obvious problems as a defense strategy.

But we really do not see that they have any choice. THORChain's best course of action is to compare the functionality of the system today and in the past to other more-respected systems with similar problems. There are only two ways the THORChain team avoids law enforcement: staying below the radar or looking like they were doing the best they could and hoping the high level plan is not to arrest everybody. If the plan is to arrest everybody they are already screwed. And staying below the radar screen has not been a viable strategy for some time. Our advice to the THORChain team is based on the simple premise that you must play the cards you are dealt.

So honestly and openly describing how THORChain is of a piece with many other web3 products out there is just about all they can do. We hope they make an effort in this direction primarily because – full disclosure here – it will be very amusing to watch people squirm. Will this likely involve making statements about illegal behaviour by other large projects which are generally considered to be good actors? Yes it will. Is that good for "web3" as a whole? Who knows. But the rest of the ecosystem brought this on themselves by accepting funds out of THORChain when it was clearly an outlaw service and then turning around and unfairly attacking it for things it did not do. Game on then it would seem.

Samsung Wallet now supports USDC on the Sui blockchain for eligible Galaxy devices in the US, the Sui Foundation announced on October 8. The integration covers up to 82 million US Galaxy devices, with other markets to follow at an unspecified date.

Users can hold and send USDC directly within Samsung Wallet. USDC is the only asset supported at launch, and the SUI token is not available. Sui's gasless stablecoin transfers mean users pay no network fee and do not need to hold SUI to move dollars.

"Stablecoins have the potential to make moving money around the world faster and easier," said Woncheol Chai, head of the digital wallet team in Samsung Electronics' mobile business.

Adeniyi Abiodun, co-founder and chief product officer of Mysten Labs, the original contributor to Sui, said that "stablecoins have proven that dollars can move globally in seconds."

The announcement settles details Samsung left open in July, when it showed a Samsung Wallet mockup holding USDC at its Galaxy Unpacked event in London but gave no chain, issuer or launch date. Choosing Sui over Ethereum, Solana or Base hands a high-profile distribution win to a network that has been courting payments use cases. Sui says it has processed more than $1 trillion in stablecoin transfer volume since August 2025.

Several practical questions remain. The announcement does not say how users fund their USDC balance, whether through a bank, a card or an exchange integration, or whether the wallet is self-custodial. It also describes the feature in terms of sending money and remittances, with no mention of paying merchants through Samsung Pay, which is where a phone wallet's distribution would matter most. Circle is not named as a partner, although native USDC has been live on Sui since 2024.

The 82 million figure measures potential reach. How many Galaxy owners actually fund a USDC balance will depend largely on the on-ramp, which Samsung and Sui have yet to describe.

2 min read

New bitcoin lending system is set to debut. (Shubham Dhage/Unsplash)Summary

Layer-1 blockchain Sui is launching Hashi, an institutional protocol allowing holders to use Bitcoin as collateral without moving it off the Bitcoin network.The system is debuting with $500 million in capital commitments from a coalition of over 20 industry partners to ensure deep day-one liquidity.Hashi’s mainnet will roll out in phases, targeting a massive pool of roughly $1 trillion in dormant, institutional Bitcoin.Bitcoin BTC$82,582.92-backed finance is about to get a massive, well-funded liquidity boost.

Layer-1 blockchain Sui is set to launch Hashi, a new institutional network that allows holders to use Bitcoin as collateral for lending without moving it off the Bitcoin ledger. The mainnet is slated to roll out in phases later this month.

To back the ecosystem, the initiative has already secured $500 million in capital commitments from a coalition of over 20 industry partners.

While these are commitments rather than immediate deposits, the pre-pledged capital ensures that when the system debuts, markets can open with deep liquidity instead of starting empty.

“Hashi is launching with serious capital and a coalition of industry leaders because institutions want to put Bitcoin to work without giving up the protections they require,” Adeniyi Abiodun, Co-Founder and Chief Product Officer of Mysten Labs, the original creator of Sui, said in an official announcement.

The primary target for this capital is a massive pool of dormant wealth. Sui estimates that roughly $1 trillion worth of Bitcoin is currently sitting idle. Until now, institutional and corporate balance-sheet holders have lacked a compliant, transparent ecosystem to safely deploy their native Bitcoin in decentralized finance (DeFi).

This launch comes amid a broader shift in Bitcoin-backed finance, where borrowing is moving far beyond speculative crypto trading. Bitcoin holders now use bitcoin-collateralized loans to cover real-world expenses like university tuition, real estate acquisitions, and corporate working capital.

"Public companies and institutions hold enormous amounts of Bitcoin, but their ability to use that capital has been constrained by the technology available to them," said Nathan McCauley, CEO and co-founder of Anchorage Digital, a day-one launch partner that also plans to supply stablecoin liquidity to the network.

"Connecting our institutional clients with Hashi represents a complete paradigm shift,” McCauley added.

Here’s how the system overcomes these institutional constraints. Instead of bridging across blockchains, users securely lock their BTC in a vault address directly on the Bitcoin blockchain. A 2-of-2 multisig secures this address, requiring cryptographic sign-off from both Hashi’s validators. Hashi also has a separate, independent guardian layer designed to monitor and slow suspicious collateral movements.

While the real bitcoin stays safely frozen on the Bitcoin network, Hashi mints hBTC, a digital voucher token on Sui, backed directly by that deposit. This is where the lending action begins. Apps on Sui can use these hBTC vouchers to fuel lending, borrowing, credit markets, and real-world asset trading. When a user wants to exit, the hBTC voucher is permanently burned on Sui, which triggers the multisig to safely unlock and release the original bitcoin back to the user on the Bitcoin network.

To meet strict institutional compliance and security standards, Hashi has undergone rigorous vetting. Security firm Certora formally verified Hashi's smart contracts, while another firm, CommonPrefix, reviewed the cryptography of its multi-party computation (MPC) protocol.

AI Disclaimer: Parts of this article were generated with the assistance from AI tools and reviewed by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and adherence to our standards. For more information, see CoinDesk's full AI Policy.

Related Assets

12345678910The Definitive Stablecoin Landscape Series: Asia Pacific

The Definitive Stablecoin Landscape Series: Asia Pacific

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

Sep 15, 2026

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

Why it matters:

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

NEAR has entered the top 20 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization, surpassing Stellar, with a 138% increase in the last 30 days.

While the cryptocurrency market as a whole is experiencing selling pressure, NEAR Protocol’s native token has attracted investor attention with its strong performance. According to CoinGecko data, NEAR has gained approximately 138% in value over the past 30 days, placing it among the top 20 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization.

As of the time of writing, NEAR’s market capitalization had reached $7.2 billion, with a daily trading volume of $1.2 billion. This surge puts the token ahead of Stellar, which has a market capitalization of approximately $7 billion.

One of the key developments behind the rally was the growth of the NEAR Intents protocol, which enables transactions across different blockchains. The protocol’s cumulative transaction volume exceeded $31 billion. NEAR Intents allows users or AI agents to perform asset swaps and transfers between chains without directly dealing with complex bridging operations.

On the institutional side, the launch of the first US spot NEAR investment product attracted attention. Launched by Bitwise and traded on the NYSE Arca under the ticker symbol NRR, the product allows investors to access the NEAR price without directly holding the token.

It’s important to remember that the rise isn’t entirely risk-free. NEAR Intents’ deposit and withdrawal infrastructure was recently compromised with a $3.8 million attack. The project team announced that all stolen funds have been recovered. While the swift resolution of the incident eased market concerns, infrastructure security remains closely monitored.

NEAR’s future performance may be determined by ETF demand, the sustainability of Intents trading volume, and potential profit-taking following the rise. While the 138% increase indicates strong momentum, such rapid increases also raise the risk of volatility.

*This is not investment advice.

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

A Near-$4 Billion Overnight Jump@LayerZero_Core recorded one of the largest single-day total value locked (TVL) movements seen in DeFi this year. Between October 2 and October 3, the protocol's TVL climbed from $7.85 billion to $11.71 billion, an increase of roughly $3.9 billion, or just under 49%, according to data from DefiLlama.

The exact driver behind the move has not been confirmed, though the timing coincides with a broader period of renewed interest in the protocol.

A Challenging Year, but Momentum BuildingThe TVL spike is a welcome development for a protocol that has navigated a difficult stretch in 2026. Earlier in the year, a $292 million exploit on a LayerZero-connected application prompted the team to overhaul its security model, deprecating single-verifier configurations and moving to a minimum of multiple independent verifiers as a new default.

Beyond security, LayerZero has been building toward a broader expansion. In February 2026, LayerZero Labs unveiled Zero, a standalone Layer-1 blockchain targeting institutional financial markets, with a mainnet launch expected in fall 2026. The chain is designed to handle up to two million transactions per second per zone using zero-knowledge proofs, with horizontal scaling potentially pushing total throughput to five million TPS.

On the token side, $ZRO has recovered sharply from its lows. A recurring open-market buyback program, institutional partnerships, and growing ecosystem activity have helped the token gain over 100% across a 30-day window heading into early October, though a scheduled token unlock of 23.63 million ZRO on October 20 remains a near-term overhang for traders to watch.

The TVL reading, combined with the protocol's improving market position, suggests that confidence in LayerZero's infrastructure role is returning, even if the precise catalyst for the October 2 to 3 surge remains unclear.

Sources:
Phemex: LayerZero V2 TVL Surges 48.53% in 24 Hours to $11.7 Billion
DefiLlama: LayerZero TVL and Protocol Metrics
Crypto Briefing: LayerZero Announces Zero Layer-1 Blockchain

Kain Warwick, the founder of Synthetix, has a blunt message for HYPE holders. The token, he says, comes with no investor protections, unlike traditional equities.

That critique lands on one of DeFi’s most closely watched assets. HYPE has been trading between $80 and $98, backed by a buyback machine that would make most public company CFOs jealous.

What Warwick is actually saying Warwick’s argument rests on a basic distinction. A share of stock is a legal claim on a company. A HYPE token is not.

HYPE holders have no legal claim on protocol revenue and none of the rights that come with traditional equity. The value they capture comes through code, not contracts.

Warwick also took aim at a specific piece of Hyperliquid’s economics. The exchange splits 50% of fees with external market builders, an arrangement he criticized as potentially unsustainable for revenue growth.

Advertisement

His concern is that the split could weigh on the buyback strategy that supports HYPE. Fewer fees flowing to the protocol means fewer dollars available to buy tokens off the market.

How HYPE’s value engine works Hyperliquid is a decentralized perpetual futures exchange. It runs on its own Layer-1 blockchain, HyperCore, with support for HyperEVM.

The protocol’s Assistance Fund directs 97–99% of trading fees toward buying back and burning HYPE. Burning removes tokens from circulation permanently.

Recent yield inputs from AQAv2 contributed around $14.5M to the fund in early October 2026. That gives the buyback program another source of fuel beyond fees alone.

Background: a launch built on community ownership HYPE launched on November 29, 2024, with a fixed supply of 1 billion tokens. Notably, there was no allocation for venture capital investors.

Approximately 31% of the supply went to around 94,000 early users through an airdrop at genesis.

The founding team at Hyperliquid Labs, led by Jeff Yan, kept 23.8% for core contributors. Those tokens follow a vesting schedule with a one-year cliff, then monthly releases running until 2028.

In early October 2026, core contributors moved 3.75 million HYPE, valued at approximately $330M, with part of that handled through OTC sales. The research also links some unlock management to regulatory scrutiny from Singapore’s MAS alongside broader market dynamics.

What this means for HYPE holders Warwick’s warning is less about whether HYPE has value and more about what kind of value it is. Holders are relying on a mechanism, not a legal right.

Warwick’s criticism carries extra weight given his position. As the founder of Synthetix, he has spent years building in the same derivatives corner of DeFi that Hyperliquid now dominates.

Token holders cannot count on courts, disclosure rules, or fiduciary duties to protect them if the rules of the game shift. Core contributor tokens continue vesting monthly until 2028, and the 3.75 million HYPE moved in early October 2026 shows those unlocks are not theoretical.

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

37 minutes ago

Pump.fun has announced an update to its Custom Pairs feature. Previously, new tokens could only be paired with tokenized stocks or whitelisted tokens, but now they can be paired with any token issued on the platform that is either still on a bonding curve or has graduated to PumpSwap. Tokens that have graduated to Raydium and are not on the whitelist are not currently supported, with exceptions for whitelisted projects like Fartcoin. The official stated that derivative trading of past popular tokens was siphoning attention and liquidity. Under the new mechanism, when purchasing a new token paired with an existing one, funds will first be converted into the paired token before buying the new token, thereby generating buy pressure and deeper liquidity for the original token pool. Currently, pairing depth is limited to one layer, and the pairing relationships of already listed tokens cannot be modified. The platform has also adjusted the fee calculation for multi-hop swaps to prevent fees from stacking up.

Scan the QR code

Download APP

Bitcoin software company Breez reported a sharp increase in demand for its developer tools following the mainstream adoption of AI coding agents, with partnership inquiries rising approximately 14 times their previous level. Breez highlighted that this demand has accelerated as both human developers and AI agents seek to integrate bitcoin payments into a broad range of applications.

AI agents reshape developer landscapeThe company linked this spike in interest to the release of Claude Code, an AI code generation tool launched by Anthropic in early 2025. Initially rolled out as a research preview and then made widely available three months later, Claude Code has enabled both experienced and novice developers to incorporate bitcoin functionality more easily into products and services.

Prior to the launch of Claude Code, Breez noted that its typical partners were predominantly established bitcoin advocates, cryptocurrency developers, or fintech firms focused on digital assets. However, the recent wave of requests originates from a more diverse set of sectors, including fitness and travel apps, messaging platforms looking to enable peer-to-peer payments, and even a project focused on mushroom identification.

Breez described how many newcomers are attracted by the speed of bitcoin integration. Unlike traditional payment systems—which can require lengthy onboarding, bank setup, and regulatory procedures—Breez claims that developers can implement its software development kit (SDK) for bitcoin payments in just minutes.

Breez stated, “Bitcoin is agnostic about whether the code of its current owner and user is composed of DNA base pairs or weights in a neural net.”

A notable trend identified by Breez is the rising proportion of requests initiated directly by AI coding agents, which develop apps and seek payment integration on behalf of companies. The company explained that these agents prefer bitcoin due to its permissionless nature, enabling global app deployment without the barriers of traditional finance, such as opening a bank account or undergoing compliance checks.

Breez is a technology firm specializing in SDKs that allow developers to add bitcoin payments to their applications, with a focus on fast integration and user-friendly solutions.

Mini dictionary: Claude Code: A specialized AI coding agent developed by Anthropic, designed to generate, audit, and integrate code into a wide range of applications. Its widespread adoption since 2025 has enabled automation of complex software development tasks, including the integration of cryptocurrency payment systems.

Potential regulatory scrutinyAlthough this shift in the software development landscape has increased the accessibility of bitcoin payments, regulatory authorities have long voiced concerns regarding the lack of identity verification in permissionless systems. Financial regulators continue to emphasize the importance of customer verification in traditional payment systems, an area where bitcoin payment platforms operate differently.

Breez addressed the technical challenge of handling increased volume by highlighting its newest SDK, which leverages Spark, a scaling protocol aimed at facilitating higher transaction throughput on the Bitcoin network. The company reported that this implementation accommodated the recent influx of integration requests smoothly.

Mini dictionary: Spark: A protocol designed to scale the Bitcoin network by increasing transaction capacity and enabling more efficient, fast payment processing within bitcoin-integrated applications.

Broader industry implicationsBreez characterized this transition as an evolution of investor Marc Andreessen’s 2011 thesis that software would come to dominate traditional industries. According to the company, AI-driven software agents are now at the forefront, using bitcoin as a foundational infrastructure element comparable to electric sockets or subsea cables. This development could signal a new phase for digital payment adoption across multiple industries.

AspectBefore Claude Code (2024)After Claude Code (2025)Primary developersBitcoin/crypto enthusiasts, fintech firmsGeneral app developers, AI agentsTypical sectorsFinance, crypto-focused appsFitness, messaging, travel, specialty appsIntegration timeframeWeeks or monthsMinutes with Breez SDKNature of requestsMainly human-initiatedSignificant share from AI agents

Reason to trust

Strict editorial policy that focuses on accuracy, relevance, and impartiality

Created by industry experts and meticulously reviewed

The highest standards in reporting and publishing

Strict editorial policy that focuses on accuracy, relevance, and impartiality

Morbi pretium leo et nisl aliquam mollis. Quisque arcu lorem, ultricies quis pellentesque nec, ullamcorper eu odio.

TL;DR: PowerCompute mined 8.1 BTC in September, up 37% from a year earlier. Its month-end Bitcoin holdings fell to 63.7 BTC after the company used 267.4 BTC to help retire a $22.45 million Bitcoin-backed credit facility, leaving most of its secured debt eliminated.

PowerCompute’s latest mining update is a useful reminder that a corporate Bitcoin treasury can serve more than one purpose.

The Nasdaq-listed miner produced 8.1 BTC in September, a 37% increase from the 5.9 BTC it mined in the same month last year and slightly above August production.

At the same time, its Bitcoin holdings fell sharply.

PowerCompute ended September with 63.7 BTC, down from 323.02 BTC at the end of August.

The reason was debt.

The company used 267.4 BTC to help settle principal and accrued interest on a Bitcoin-backed credit facility with Arch, eliminating approximately $22.45 million of obligations and releasing the collateral attached to the loan.

That reduced secured debt from roughly $23.7 million to $1.25 million.

The remaining borrowing is not secured by Bitcoin.

For public miners, that trade-off is significant.

Bitcoin holdings are often presented as a measure of financial strength, particularly when a company’s market value is compared with the BTC sitting on its balance sheet.

But debt changes the picture.

A large treasury that is pledged against borrowings is not as flexible as unencumbered Bitcoin, and leverage can become particularly painful when BTC prices or mining economics turn against the company.

PowerCompute chose to shrink the treasury substantially in exchange for removing most of that leverage.

Management has framed the decision as using Bitcoin to retire debt rather than carrying the financing cost.

The operational side of the update was more positive.

September production of 8.1 BTC was also up from 7.9 BTC in August.

The company operates 26 megawatts of interconnected power infrastructure across facilities in Oklahoma and Mississippi, while also exploring a broader shift toward high-performance computing and AI-related infrastructure.

PowerCompute also generated about $89,000 from selling electricity back to the grid during periods when seasonal heat made curtailment more attractive than mining.

That illustrates another part of modern mining economics.

A miner with access to flexible power is not always maximizing revenue by running machines continuously. At certain times, the electricity itself can be worth more than the Bitcoin the same power would produce.

PowerCompute said energy sales totaled roughly $312,000 across the three months ended September.

The company’s strategy therefore now sits across several moving pieces: Bitcoin production, power-market economics, debt reduction and potential data-center expansion.

None of them is as eye-catching as simply announcing another BTC purchase.

But the September figures show why balance-sheet quality matters.

PowerCompute owns far less Bitcoin than it did a month earlier.

It also owns that Bitcoin with dramatically less secured debt hanging over it.

More than two years after US spot Bitcoin ETFs won regulatory approval, getting one through a financial advisor still depends heavily on where you bank.

A May 2026 analysis from crypto asset manager Bitwise finds that five major US wealth platforms restrict access to Bitcoin exchange-traded products (ETPs). Another 18 allow only unsolicited trades.

Three tiers of access Bitwise sorted US wealth platforms into three buckets based on how they treat Bitcoin ETPs: Restricted, Unsolicited Only, and Solicited.

On a Solicited platform, advisors can actively recommend Bitcoin ETPs to clients. They can bring the idea up in a portfolio review, discuss allocation, and treat it like any other approved product.

According to Bitwise, firms in this group include Morgan Stanley, Fidelity, Charles Schwab, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Vanguard.

On an Unsolicited Only platform, advisors cannot pitch the product. They will execute a Bitcoin ETP trade only when the client asks for it. The burden of initiative sits entirely with the investor.

Bitwise places JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and UBS in this camp. In total, 18 platforms fall into the Unsolicited Only category.

Then there are the Restricted platforms. These five firms actively limit Bitcoin ETP investment opportunities for clients. Bitwise names HSBC, T. Rowe Price, and American Express among them.

A slow, uneven rollout since 2024 The backdrop here is the January 2024 approval of US spot Bitcoin ETFs. That decision gave traditional investors a regulated, brokerage-friendly way to hold Bitcoin exposure without managing wallets or private keys.

Bitwise’s findings show how unevenly that process has played out. Some firms have moved all the way to letting advisors make recommendations. Others have settled into a middle ground, while a handful remain closed off.

What this means for investors and the industry If an advisor cannot raise Bitcoin ETPs, a large share of clients may simply never consider them. Access technically exists, but distribution does not.

According to the research, the move toward broader solicited access could catalyze greater adoption and heightens the potential for significant capital inflows into Bitcoin ETPs.

The research also notes that full mainstream integration is contingent on further regulatory clarity and continued due diligence at wealth platforms. The prize, as the analysis frames it, is trillions of dollars in client assets currently under management that remain largely out of reach.

For investors, the practical takeaway is straightforward. If you want Bitcoin ETP exposure through an advisor, your platform’s policy shapes the conversation you can have. At a Solicited firm, your advisor can walk you through it. At an Unsolicited Only firm, you will need to request it yourself. At a Restricted firm, you may need to look elsewhere entirely.

For now, Bitwise’s map shows a wealth management industry that has accepted Bitcoin ETPs in principle. In practice, how freely clients can reach them still depends on which firm holds their account.

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

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday finalized rules allowing crypto exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to list on Thailand’s main stock exchange, limited initially to Bitcoin and Ether.

The regulator said the rules will take effect on Oct. 16, 2026. Crypto ETFs must be listed for trading exclusively on the Stock Exchange of Thailand. Products linked to foreign crypto ETFs, such as depositary receipts, will not be permitted initially, while Thai brokers will remain barred from facilitating investments in overseas crypto ETFs for retail investors outside institutions and ultra-high-net-worth individuals.

“We have previously seen examples in the United States where the launch of the Spot Bitcoin ETF and Spot Ethereum ETF created new avenues for institutional and retail investors to easily access digital assets,” Attakrit Chimphlapibul, co-founder of Bitkub Group, told Money and Banking on Thursday. 

The framework opens a new route for Thai investors to gain exposure to Bitcoin and Ether through the stock market. The SEC also amended its rules to allow mutual funds and private funds to invest in Thai-established crypto ETFs, whereas previously they could invest only in foreign crypto ETFs. 

The framework also prohibits brokers from providing margin loans to purchase crypto ETFs and requires fund assets to be held with SEC-regulated digital asset custodians. Investors must receive information about the products and confirm that they understand the risks before trading.

Crypto ETFs must be managed as a passive investment vehicle seeking to track the price of the crypto asset in which it invests. It must maintain net exposure to a single cryptocurrency averaging at least 80% of net asset value over each accounting year.

The SEC consulted on the proposed principles in April and May and on draft regulations in August and September. Most respondents supported the proposals, the regulator said.

Magazine: China’s P2P stablecoin wallets surge 43x, Korea’s $450B crypto economy: Asia Express

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

XRP has entered a correction alongside the broader crypto market, but retail activity has increased across exchanges as whale dominance declines. 

Notably, XRP fell from a local high of $1.52 on Oct. 6 to around $1.39 at press time. Several factors have contributed to the decline, including broader market selling, higher US Treasury yields, and leveraged liquidations. 

The US 30-year Treasury yield climbed toward 5.72% on Oct. 7, reaching a level not seen in about 24 years. This rise in yields has weighed on risk assets, and XRP has also felt the impact.

XRP Retail Activity Increases as Whale Dominance Falls Amid the decline in XRP’s price, exchange data shows a change in investor activity. Specifically, retail participation has increased across centralized exchanges, while the share of activity linked to larger holders has declined.

The main measure in this data is the Whale vs. Retail Spread (%). The metric assesses the difference between XRP exchange outflow activity from large holders and that from retail investors. 

A falling spread does not necessarily mean whales are selling. What it does show is that the difference between whale and retail activity is becoming smaller.

Between Sept. 30 and Oct. 8, 2026, the All CEX Whale vs. Retail Spread fell from 64% to 46.7%. This represents a decline of 17.3 percentage points, or roughly 27% in eight days.

XRP Whale Vs Retail Spread | Source: CryptoQuant The sudden drop shows that retail investors have become a much larger part of XRP’s exchange outflow activity over the past week. This is important because it has happened while XRP’s price has dropped lower.

Binance Shows a Slower Change While Binance has followed the same general trend, the change has been less pronounced. Between Sept. 30 and Oct. 8, 2026, the Binance Whale vs. Retail Spread fell from 68% to 54.9%.

This marks a decline of 13.1 percentage points, or about 19.3%. While the drop is worth noting, it is smaller than the decline recorded across all centralized exchanges.

Also, at 54.9%, Binance’s current reading remains 8.2 percentage points above the 46.7% reading for all centralized exchanges.

This suggests that whale activity still has a stronger influence on Binance than it does across the wider exchange market. However, both readings have moved lower, confirming that retail activity has gained ground in both cases.

In addition, Binance’s XRP reserves provide further evidence of continued activity from large holders. The exchange’s XRP reserves fell from 2.704 billion XRP to 2.631 billion XRP between Sept. 26 and Oct. 4. Interestingly, whale-sized outflows drove much of this decline during the period. 

XRP RSI Reaches Deeply Oversold Levels The recent price decline has also pushed XRP’s technical indicators toward extreme levels. According to a recent report from The Crypto Basic, the 4-hour XRP Relative Strength Index (RSI) has reached levels not seen since XRP traded at $1.05.

Similar oversold conditions can create room for a short-term rebound, but they do not guarantee one. Overall, the broader market remains under pressure, while higher Treasury yields and other macroeconomic factors could continue to limit demand for risk assets.

XRP whales have accelerated their withdrawal of assets from Binance, with the 30-day cumulative outflow surging from $600 million in early August to over $1.3 billion in September. The ongoing movement has drawn attention from traders and analysts, who are closely monitoring its possible impact on the market.

Whale outflows climb sharplyData from blockchain analytics platform CryptoQuant shows that large XRP holders have steadily increased their withdrawals from Binance over the past month. The 30-day rolling outflow volume, which measures the total value of assets withdrawn by major holders, exceeded $1.3 billion in September. This figure is more than double the $600 million recorded at the start of August.

Xaif, a widely followed cryptocurrency commentator, pointed to this trend on X (formerly Twitter), emphasizing that whale movements intensified dramatically during periods of price volatility.

Earlier in September, XRP posted a notable surge of over 50% within 65 hours, creating renewed optimism among investors. Analysts noted that the largest outflow spike coincided with this rally, suggesting that whales may have opted to take profits or transfer their holdings to secure storage solutions.

Whales are moving while retail is distracted, with 30-day XRP outflows jumping from $600 million to over $1.3 billion.

A similar wave of withdrawals accompanied another short-term price jump later in September, adding further weight to theories of strategic positioning by major holders ahead of or during periods of market volatility.

PeriodXRP 30-day Outflow from BinanceEarly August$600 millionSeptember$1.3 billionPrice volatility and flash crashThe discussion around whale withdrawals intensified further after a sharp price drop. Hours before publicizing the outflow figures, Xaif observed that XRP experienced a rapid decline from $1.49 to $1.45 within minutes, erasing a portion of its recent gains and cutting through previous support levels.

It remains uncertain whether this sudden drop directly resulted from whale withdrawals, but several analysts noted the alignment between extended outflow periods and heightened price swings.

Traders and market observers have weighed in across social platforms, largely agreeing with assertions that whales can significantly drive market sentiment and movement. One commenter argued that large holders typically accumulate or divest their assets quietly, while retail investors often miss the signals hidden in such on-chain activity.

Many market participants only recognize the significance of whale activity after a major shift, often wondering why they did not notice the underlying signals sooner.

Others, including experienced traders, advised monitoring whale actions closely. Several users revealed plans to buy the dip, indicating that portions of the retail community view these drops as potential entry points rather than exit signals.

Xaif, active in the cryptocurrency commentary space, has built a following for sharing on-chain data and market insights for assets including XRP.

Mini dictionary: CryptoQuant is a blockchain analytics platform offering real-time and historical data on cryptocurrency exchanges, on-chain activity, and market trends. It is widely used by investors and analysts to track large transactions and whale movements.

Ongoing trends and market impactSustained whale outflows from exchanges often precede significant price movements, though their intent—whether accumulation or profit taking—is subject to interpretation. The marked increase in 30-day outflows since August signals deliberate, ongoing realignment among major XRP holders.

While some investors remain cautious, others see the current conditions as a buying opportunity, with opinions split on whether the trend points to accumulation or an early warning sign of increased volatility ahead.

The XRP decentralization debate is heating up again, with Justin Bons, the founder of Cyber Capital, claiming that XRP advocates are duping retail investors ahead of a controversial XRP Ledger update.

"Selling XRP to retail as 'decentralized' is straight up fraud!" wrote Justin Bons in a recent X post.

The passionate cryptocurrency analyst cited the use of undocumented software code by the XRP Ledger in its recent development as an example showing major flaws in the network's governance and consensus system.

HOT Stories

Bons believes the XRP Ledger has been operating on closed-source code for around two weeks now and that the change is expected to become mandatory as of Friday, Oct. 9.

You Might Also Like

XRP Ledger developers shipped an emergency software update on Sept. 25, version 3.4.1 for the XRP Ledger server software. It tackles security-sensitive problems and adds the fixBatchV1_2 amendment.

XRP Ledger developers confirmed that sensitive security fixes are currently not published in source code form, which they plan to release together with a technical retrospective.

Should the amendment remain adequately supported and be activated on Oct. 9, outdated software servers will be amendment-blocked and will be unable to stay in sync with the network.

Bons claims that keeping the source code undisclosed leads to unnecessary security concerns. 

Is XRP really centralized?Regarding the whole debate over centralization, the key point is the Unique Node List (UNL) model of the XRP Ledger.

As opposed to Bitcoin's Proof-of-Work system, the XRP Ledger depends on validators that individual network participants must trust. Ripple and the XRP Ledger Foundation publish lists of recommended validators that are used by default in the server configurations.

Anyone can run a validator for the XRP Ledger, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have any say in consensus. The other participants need to include them in their trusted list.

Technically, node operators may use any validators they wish, but XRP Ledger documentation warns that inadequate shared lists may lead to a node diverging from the rest of the network.

In the eyes of Bons, the existence of recommended validator lists gives their publishers too much power over the network.

Ethereum traders are quietly heading for the exits. Open interest in ETH derivatives has fallen 11.7%, reaching its lowest level since June 2026.

Nobody is panic selling. Leveraged traders are simply closing positions, and the futures market is getting noticeably smaller as a result.

What the numbers show Measured in coins, ETH derivatives open interest has slipped to 12.49 million ETH as of late September to early October 2026. One dataset puts that as the lowest reading since March 1, 2026.

That figure reflects a drop of 1.46 million ETH from the levels recorded during the early July recovery.

The selloff in positioning also had a single dramatic day. Aggregate ETH contract open interest fell 7.53% in one session in early October, landing at approximately $31.8 billion.

Binance, which holds a large share of ETH derivatives activity, tells a similar story. Recent estimates place ETH open interest on the exchange somewhere between $3.25 billion and $6.2 billion.

Earlier this year, Binance ETH open interest fell to approximately $4.16 billion in late June. That marked its lowest point in over three months at the time.

Shorts are holding the wheel Funding rates on certain exchanges have now turned negative. That means bearish traders are paying to keep their positions open, which suggests they are currently in control of perpetuals.

All of this is happening while ETH trades in a fairly narrow band. Prices have been consolidating between $2,600 and $2,800, with spot market activity outweighing derivatives trading.

The bigger deleveraging picture Analytics providers Coinglass and CryptoQuant have both tracked the ongoing deleveraging across ETH markets. Their data points to a broad caution about holding leveraged positions right now.

The pattern is not unique to Ethereum. Bitcoin futures have shown similar behavior, where falling open interest tends to reflect weaker speculative demand.

What this means for ETH traders Lower open interest cuts both ways. On the positive side, less leverage in the system means fewer positions that can be forcibly liquidated if prices move sharply, as current leverage levels remain subdued compared to previous peaks.

The negative funding rates complicate that picture. They show that active traders expect further declines and are positioning accordingly.

There is also a contrarian wrinkle. When shorts crowd into a trade and pay to stay there, a sudden move higher can force them to buy back positions quickly, which can amplify any upside.

A few indicators are worth tracking from here. The first is whether open interest stabilizes near 12.49 million ETH or keeps sliding. The second is funding. A return to positive rates would suggest long traders are regaining confidence, while deeper negative rates would signal growing conviction among bears. The third is the price range itself. A move outside $2,600 to $2,800 would likely pull sidelined traders back in, in whichever direction the break occurs.

Exchange-level data also deserves attention. Binance figures, given the platform’s share of ETH derivatives, could offer an early read on whether leverage is returning or still draining.

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