Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Chainlink Powers Archax's Tokenized Treasury Product

According to an official announcement, OKX will launch xNFLX USDC spot trading at 19:00 Beijing time on October 20.

Relevant content

Strive Preferred Shares (SATS) debuts on Nasdaq, raising $630 million in its IPO, with an annual fixed dividend yield of 15%.

Strive's new preferred stock, SATS, has raised $630 million via an initial public offering (IPO) and listed on the Nasdaq. The proceeds will be used to increase Bitcoin holdings and invest in income-generating assets. The preferred stock offers a 15% annual fixed dividend, paid daily, with the first dividend scheduled for November 9.

5 minutes ago

US and Iran initially endorse Pakistan-brokered proposal, WTI and Brent crude futures dip in short-term trading

According to Israel's Channel 12, a proposal presented by Pakistan's Army Chief to senior Iranian officials today has received US approval, with Iran also giving preliminary assent. The proposal partially addresses Iran's demand for the return of frozen funds, specifying that interest generated from Iran's $6 billion in frozen assets held in Qatari banks will be transferred to Iran. Possibly driven by this news, US and Brent crude oil futures dipped around $0.8 in the short term, now standing at $97.51 per barrel and $105.76 per barrel respectively. On the news front, reports note that the US and Iran have preliminarily endorsed the Pakistan-brokered proposal.

5 minutes ago

The US stock market's storage sector turned positive during intraday trading, with Seagate Technology rising 1.45%.

According to market data from BIT (Bit.com), the US stock storage sector turned positive during intraday trading, with individual stocks posting gains: SanDisk up 0.53%, Micron up 0.38%, Seagate Technology up 1.45%, and Western Digital up 1.09%.

5 minutes ago

Bitcoin rebounds to break through $83,000.

According to HTX market data, Bitcoin has rebounded and broken through $83,000.

5 minutes ago

An address offloaded 58.57 WBTC at an average price of $81,620, totaling $4.78 million.

According to monitoring by crypto influencer Ai Yi, address 0x7a6…c096c has sold off 58.57 WBTC on-chain over the past 8 hours, worth $4.78 million at an average selling price of $81,620.

5 minutes ago

US crypto-related concept stocks turned positive during intraday trading, with CRCL rising 2.80%.

According to market data from BIT (Bit.com), U.S. crypto-related concept stocks turned positive during intraday trading, with MSTR rising 1.19%, COIN up 0.66%, CRCL gaining 2.80%, SBET up 2.21%, BMNR up 2.29%, and HOOD up 1.20%.

5 minutes ago

Sophon to shut down mainnet on November 30, sets earlier withdrawal deadline

France's National Assembly has backed a 31.4% flat tax on crypto-to-stablecoin swaps, ending tax deferral on conversions into $USDC, $USDT and $EURC-type tokens from 2027.

French lawmakers have voted to impose a 31.4% flat tax on conversions from cryptocurrency into stablecoins, ending a tax-deferred treatment that has applied to on-chain rebalancing. Under the measure, swapping digital assets into tokens such as $USDC, $USDT and $EURC would trigger a taxable event, regardless of whether proceeds stay in self-custody wallets.

What the amendment changes

The rate is not new.

Not yet lawThe vote is a first step.

The thin margin leaves the outcome open.

Industry analysts have flagged the risk of displacement. CoinDesk reported that the firm warned the proposal could drive crypto activity offshore.

For French holders, the practical effect is on strategy.

Sources

Crypto Briefing: France pushes budget vote on stablecoin swap tax to November 3CoinDesk: France's 31.4% stablecoin tax proposal risks driving crypto activity offshore, warns ChainalysisBitcoin.com News: French Assembly Narrowly Adopts Stablecoin Swap Tax Proposal

1 hours ago

Coinbase has released a report titled "The Always-On Dollar", which notes that in Q3 2026, the average hourly transaction volume of organic stablecoin transfers exceeded $400 million. For the 12-month period ending July 31, approximately 73% of screened stablecoin transfer volume occurred outside U.S. banking hours, highlighting the demand for always-on stablecoin payments. The report shows that adjusted quarterly stablecoin transfer volume has quadrupled since early 2023, reaching $891 billion in Q3 2026. At the current growth rate, this figure is expected to hit $1.5 trillion by the end of 2027. The report also points out that sending $200 via USDC on the Base network saves around 86% in fees compared to traditional payment channels. Additionally, if 80% of global international transactions shift to stablecoin payment networks, global annual GDP could rise by an extra $155 billion. Looking ahead, the report positions stablecoins as a critical payment infrastructure for the AI agent economy. McKinsey forecasts that by 2030, AI agents will drive $3 trillion to $5 trillion in global B2C transactions, and stablecoins can support small transactions including paying task fees between agents, purchasing API calls, and accessing data and computing power on demand.

Scan the QR code

Download APP

Buyers fund contracts in USDC and cannot exit before expiry. US and UK residents are among those excluded.

Free newsletters

Good reporting. Delivered.Choose your coverage: crypto and DeFi, the future of finance, or both.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

BitTorrent has completed its first quarterly BTT buyback and burn, removing approximately 21.62 trillion tokens worth $7.6 million from circulation as it introduces a new whitepaper focused on Web3 and artificial intelligence infrastructure.

Summary

BitTorrent completed its first quarterly buyback and burn on October 16, removing approximately 21.62 trillion BTT from circulation.
The company valued the burned tokens at $7.6 million and said purchases were funded by third-quarter decentralized service revenue.
Its new whitepaper links peer-to-peer file sharing, decentralized AI computing and BitTorrent Chain under one infrastructure plan.
BitTorrent reported 587,928,383 client installations in its October 12–18 weekly update.
BTT staking on BTTC offered an annual percentage yield of up to 6.84%, according to the company’s latest report.

In its October 12–18 weekly report, the company confirmed that its brand upgrade was live, the first buyback cycle had concluded and its revised whitepaper was available. It reported nearly 588 million client installations and a staking yield of up to 6.84% on BitTorrent Chain.

The burn took place on October 16, two days before BitTorrent issued a separate announcement detailing its token repurchase program and plans for decentralized AI services.

📢 LAST WEEK IN #BitTorrent
✅ The BitTorrent brand upgrade is officially live.
✅ The new BitTorrent Whitepaper is now available.
✅ The first quarterly $BTT buyback and burn for Q3 of 2026 has been completed.
✅ BitTorrent client installations have reached 587,928,383.
✅ The… pic.twitter.com/uaccFjXrdn

— BitTorrent (@BitTorrent) October 20, 2026

BitTorrent completes first $7.6 million BTT token burn
BitTorrent said it transferred exactly 21,621,611,570,729.6 BTT to a burn address after purchasing the tokens using revenue generated during the third quarter of 2026.

Its October 18announcement valued the transaction at $7,600,907. The company published the transaction hash, 4d9596617780e329bbd4e644ee0dffd780ec4cf3749f324d03eb98157eb04ae5, allowing the burn to be checked against blockchain records.

Tokens sent to an inaccessible burn address are intended to remain permanently outside the circulating supply. However, removing tokens does not guarantee that BTT’s market price will rise.

Moreover, the company announced the quarterly program on July 6, committing 100% of revenue from its decentralized services to purchases of BTT on the open market.

As crypto.news reported when the program was introduced, the plan called for repurchased tokens to be burned around the middle of the following quarter’s first month.

The October 16 transaction therefore followed the previously announced timetable, with BitTorrent saying future quarterly figures and associated blockchain records would be published through a dedicated dashboard.

New BitTorrent whitepaper combines file sharing and AI computing
Alongside the token burn, BitTorrent has introduced a revised infrastructure plan bringing its existing file-sharing products together with decentralized computing and blockchain settlement.

The whitepaper describes three components: BitTorrent Mainnet for peer-to-peer content distribution, BTTInferGrid for AI computing and BTTC for cross-chain transactions and scaling.

BitTorrent Mainnet retains the company’s established file distribution role, allowing users to exchange content directly through participating devices.

BTTInferGrid is designed to connect AI developers with distributed graphics processing units. Hardware operators supply computing capacity, while developers request resources for inference tasks, which involve running trained AI models.

The project initially introduced BTTInferGrid in June, describing a phased rollout beginning with network participants and validation of distributed computing services.

Its published development schedule places network bootstrapping in 2026, further support for AI models and privacy features in 2027, and larger infrastructure ambitions from 2028 onward.

The company said its computing network would initially prioritize professional-grade GPUs, with restrictions on early hardware-provider participation before a planned move toward permissionless access.

BTTC provides the blockchain component, supporting network transactions and interoperability involving TRON, Ethereum and BNB Chain. According to the updated plan, BTT serves as the payment and incentive token across the services.

Client installations reach 587.9 million as staking APY hits 6.84%
BitTorrent’s weekly figures show that recorded client installations reached 587,928,383 during the October 12–18 reporting period.

The company did not provide an independently audited breakdown of active users in the information accompanying that figure. Cumulative installations should not be confused with the number of people currently using its software.

The same update listed annual percentage yields of up to 6.84% for BTT staking on BTTC.

Staking APY is an annualized measure of potential rewards and may change with network conditions. The reported rate does not establish that investors will receive 6.84% over a full year.

BitTorrent’s staking and usage figures remain company-reported metrics, with no separate supporting methodology identified in the weekly announcement.

BTT revenue policy links token burns to network services
The latest burn introduces the first reported result of the company’s revenue-funded repurchase policy, following its July commitment to make quarterly purchases.

Under the plan, revenue from decentralized services is used to buy BTT tokens, which are subsequently sent to a burn address. The mechanism links the number of tokens repurchased to revenue and prevailing market prices.

The October transaction establishes the amount burned and the company’s stated valuation, but the announcement does not provide independently audited financial statements detailing the underlying revenue sources.

BitTorrent’s June BTTInferGrid announcement said AI-related services were expected to provide another source of revenue for future repurchases.

Its original roadmap placed the next burn disclosure around the middle of the first month following each reporting quarter, accompanied by the amount of BTT removed and the relevant on-chain transaction records.

Cover image via depositphotos.com 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.

Two assets are fighting for the bottom of the top-10 list right now. Hyperliquid (HYPE) sits 9th with a market cap of $19.78 billion, while Zcash (ZEC) holds 10th place at $19.22 billion. The gap between them is only about $560 million, so a small move can change their places. HYPE trades at $77.90 and has dropped 5.16% over the last week. 

ZEC trades at $1,135.89, down 4.50% in the same period. Both coins are weaker than Bitcoin, which lost 2.23%, but they are holding up better than Ethereum, which fell 4.66%. Trading volume favors ZEC at $715.21 million over HYPE at $541.44 million, which indicates strong interest in the privacy coin.

Hyperliquid (HYPE) AnalysisOn the chart, Hyperliquid peaked near $98 in late September and has been sliding since. The price now sits right at the 100-day moving average at around $77. This line has acted as support before, so buyers will likely try to defend it. If it breaks, the next important level is the 200-day line near $67.

HOT Stories

HYPE/USDT Chart by TradingViewThe RSI is near 40, which points to weak momentum but not an oversold market. To turn bullish again, HYPE needs to reclaim the $82 to $83 zone.

Zcash (ZEC) AnalysisZcash had a far bigger run. It jumped from about $500 in August to nearly $1,700 in September, a gain of more than 200%. The fall since then has been sharp, with the price dropping to around $1,050 before bouncing slightly.

You Might Also Like

ZEC is now trading below the 50-day average near $1,180, which has turned into resistance. The 100-day line near $1,000 is the main support, and the 200-day line near $790 is far below. The RSI is around 45, which is neutral.

Both assets share a similar pattern. They rallied hard, topped out in late September, and are now cooling off. The key difference is the distance to support. HYPE is already testing its 100-day line, while ZEC still has room to fall before reaching its own.

The race for 9th place will depend on which coin recovers first. A move above $82 for HYPE could widen its lead. A push above $1,200 for ZEC could flip the ranking and put the privacy coin back in front.

J.P. Morgan Asset Management has projected that Bitcoin could deliver annual compounded returns of 10% over the next 10 to 15 years, exceeding its forecasts for U.S. large-cap stocks, gold and real estate investment trusts.

Summary

JPMorgan Asset Management has included Bitcoin in its long-term market forecasts for the first time. The firm projects 10% annual compounded Bitcoin returns, above its expectations for U.S. stocks and gold. Bitcoin’s projected 55% annual volatility is far higher than the estimates for traditional investment assets. The bank has left Bitcoin outside its main portfolio allocation models because of unstable market correlations. Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan highlighted the forecast while acknowledging JPMorgan’s warnings about Bitcoin’s risks. According to the firm’s 2027 Long-Term Capital Market Assumptions, Bitcoin has entered its long-term return analysis for the first time, although its volatility and changing relationships with other assets have kept it outside the main portfolio allocation models. The latest assumptions cover more than 200 asset classes and provide projections intended for strategic investment planning.

The forecast places Bitcoin’s compounded annual return at 10%, compared with 7.5% for U.S. large-cap stocks, 8.2% for U.S. real estate investment trusts and 5.5% for gold. JPMorgan assigned Bitcoin a separate arithmetic average annual return of 20.9% and an annualized volatility assumption of 55%.

The figures form part of a forward-looking investment model and do not guarantee Bitcoin will outperform any of those assets. The bank’s published outlook emphasizes the uncertainty surrounding cryptocurrency returns, even as it introduces a dedicated forecast for the world’s largest digital asset.

JPMorgan projects Bitcoin returns above major U.S. assets Bitcoin’s inclusion in JPMorgan’s long-term assumptions is one of the additions to the firm’s 31st annual report, released on October 19.

The 2027 edition examines expected investment returns over a 10- to 15-year period. JPMorgan prepares these estimates to help institutional investors assess portfolio risks and compare the possible performance of different assets under a consistent forecasting framework.

Among the figures highlighted in the report, Bitcoin leads the selected assets in expected compounded returns. Its 10% projection is 2.5 percentage points above U.S. large-cap stocks and 4.5 percentage points above gold.

U.S. real estate investment trusts have a projected annual compounded return of 8.2%, placing them 1.8 percentage points below Bitcoin. The firm’s assumptions put U.S. small-cap stocks at 7.7%, according to the published comparison circulated by Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan.

The forecasts for conventional assets remain positive, even though JPMorgan expects changes in global capital flows and economic policy to affect future investment returns. Its October 19 announcement projects a 7% annualized return for a traditional portfolio consisting of 60% stocks and 40% bonds.

The asset manager said its updated outlook takes account of productivity gains from artificial intelligence, corporate profitability and higher bond yields. It expects those factors to influence returns across both public and private markets over the coming decade.

Bitcoin’s forecast appears alongside traditional asset classes, but the company has not identified it as an appropriate allocation for every investor. The report treats the cryptocurrency’s potential gains and risk characteristics as separate considerations.

Bitcoin’s 55% volatility forecast exceeds stocks and gold JPMorgan’s higher return estimate comes with a substantial volatility assumption.

The firm projects annualized Bitcoin volatility at 55%, compared with approximately 18% for U.S. large-cap equities and 17.2% for gold. Based on those figures, the Bitcoin volatility assumption is roughly three times the level assigned to either asset.

Volatility measures the size of price fluctuations around an investment’s expected return. A higher reading indicates that an asset’s actual performance may vary more substantially from its central forecast, including periods of significant losses.

The bank’s reported arithmetic average return estimate for Bitcoin stands at 20.9%, significantly above its compounded return assumption of 10%. The two measures describe different aspects of a modeled investment return and should not be interpreted as interchangeable forecasts.

An arithmetic return is the simple average of annual results. A compound return accounts for the effect of gains and losses occurring over multiple periods, making it more useful for estimating how an investment’s value may develop through time.

Large losses create a bigger difference between those measures because subsequent gains must recover the value already lost. JPMorgan’s separate figures are consistent with the importance of accounting for volatility when considering long-term Bitcoin returns.

To illustrate the effect of compounding, an investment growing at a constant 10% a year would become approximately 2.59 times its starting value after ten years. Over 15 years, it would reach roughly 4.18 times its initial value, assuming the stated rate held throughout.

Those calculations are mathematical examples, not projections of a smooth price path for Bitcoin. Actual annual returns would vary, and the modeled volatility indicates substantial uncertainty around any single compounded outcome.

JPMorgan excludes Bitcoin from its main portfolio allocation models Despite publishing a Bitcoin return forecast, JPMorgan has not added the cryptocurrency to its main covariance matrices used for long-term portfolio construction.

In its official investment outlook, the firm explains that Bitcoin’s volatile performance and unstable correlations with conventional assets complicate its inclusion in strategic portfolios. Instead, the report contains a separate, smaller covariance matrix examining Bitcoin alongside selected public-market assets.

A covariance matrix measures how investment returns move in relation to one another. Portfolio managers use such estimates when assessing whether combining different assets may alter the risk and return characteristics of a portfolio.

The challenge identified by JPMorgan is that Bitcoin’s relationship with stocks, bonds and other investments can change over time. Such variation complicates assumptions about how reliably the cryptocurrency would diversify a traditional investment portfolio during periods of market stress.

Its report cautions against assuming that concerns about the U.S. dollar will necessarily cause investors to move into cryptocurrency. The asset manager states that Bitcoin’s volatility and uncertain correlations remain obstacles to widespread inclusion in institutional portfolios.

The decision is distinct from excluding Bitcoin entirely from research. JPMorgan has introduced a long-term return estimate while preserving a separate framework for evaluating its risk and correlation characteristics.

Earlier, crypto.news covered JPMorgan’s Bitcoin outlook in July, when the bank pointed to institutional futures demand and Strategy’s growing cash reserves as supportive developments for the cryptocurrency. That research concerned market conditions and treasury financing, while the new report models expected returns over a much longer horizon.

The firm’s June review of Bitcoin treasury risks examined dividend obligations at Strategy and potential pressure on its dollar reserves. Those company-specific risks are separate from JPMorgan Asset Management’s latest asset-class assumptions.

Bitwise CIO highlights Bitcoin’s long-term return estimate Matt Hougan, chief investment officer at Bitwise, drew attention to Bitcoin’s inclusion in JPMorgan’s long-term forecasts on October 20.

In a post on X, Hougan described the bank’s decision as a notable development in the way large financial institutions evaluate cryptocurrencies. He pointed to Bitcoin’s expected performance relative to other asset classes while acknowledging the limits set out in the report.

Hougan wrote that JPMorgan had included Bitcoin in its capital market assumptions and projected it would be the best-performing asset over the next decade. His comments represent his interpretation of the forecast, not a guarantee made by the asset manager.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight at you, then they add you to their Long-Term Capital Markets Assumptions paper and predict you'll be the best-performing asset of the next decade. pic.twitter.com/TuOuH51l3c

— Matt Hougan (@Matt_Hougan) October 20, 2026 He subsequently acknowledged that JPMorgan included several qualifications and described Bitcoin as an asset that is still maturing. The firm’s separate treatment of Bitcoin in its portfolio models is consistent with those qualifications.

Bitwise manages cryptocurrency investment products and has a commercial interest in the continued development of the digital asset market. Hougan’s response therefore comes from an industry participant whose business is connected to cryptocurrency investing.

JPMorgan’s official materials do not make a specific recommendation that investors allocate a fixed percentage of their portfolios to Bitcoin. Its 2027 assumptions are intended to support long-term planning and are not designed as short-term trading signals.

JPMorgan expects traditional portfolios to return 7% annually Alongside its new Bitcoin research, JPMorgan revised its outlook for conventional investment portfolios.

The asset manager projects annual returns of 7% for a U.S. dollar-denominated portfolio invested 60% in equities and 40% in bonds over the next 10 to 15 years. Its latest assumptions put global aggregate bond returns at approximately 5.3%, the highest forecast for that category in two decades.

The company expects a portfolio that allocates 30% to certain alternative assets to potentially earn up to 7.5% annually, depending on its composition. It estimates that such allocations could improve the portfolio’s risk-adjusted return under the assumptions used in the report.

JPMorgan attributes its equity outlook partly to expectations of stronger corporate profitability and productivity gains associated with technology investment. It raised its U.S. large-cap equity return forecast by 0.8 percentage points compared with the previous edition.

The report’s estimates are based on market conditions and assumptions available through September 30, 2026. J.P. Morgan Asset Management says the forecasts are updated annually and are intended for long-term strategic allocations, not forecasts of next year’s market performance.

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

"A realistic framing is: ZEC retains the edge unless Monero gets a concrete liquidity or regulatory-access catalyst," Perplexity said.

Most leading cryptocurrencies are well in negative territory on a weekly basis, yet Monero (XMR) has defied the latest correction, rising about 11% to nearly $600.

However, it remains the second-largest privacy coin, with Zcash (ZEC) ranking first. We asked three of the most widely used AI-powered chatbots whether XMR can keep pumping this year and eventually overtake its rival. Here are the answers.

Yes… But
ChatGPT said XMR could flip ZEC by market capitalization in the remaining months of the year, but treated it as “a plausible scenario rather than the most likely outcome.” The reason is that the gap between them is substantial: more than $8 billion.

The chatbot said XMR’s strongest bullish argument is its mandatory privacy, where every transaction uses privacy features automatically, while Zcash supports both shielded and transparent transactions.

“That distinction could help XMR attract capital if investors increasingly prioritize privacy by default, although it does not guarantee stronger price performance,” it added.

On the other hand, ChatGPT claimed Monero’s biggest obstacle is limited access to crypto exchanges. The very few trading venues that have embraced XMR include KuCoin, MEXC, and Kraken (available in select jurisdictions). Binance and Coinbase don’t allow such services, with the former delisting the coin in 2024.

Perplexity also estimated that XMR could overtake ZEC sometime this year, but said the development has a low probability. It praised Zcash for leading its field after a major rally earlier this year and attracting significant capital into its ecosystem.

At the same time, it claimed that Monero remains the stronger “pure privacy” asset but faces tighter venue access. The chatbot said a listing on a popular exchange, the launch of a spot XMR ETF, or a sharp ZEC correction could help narrow the gap.

You may also like:

Zcash (ZEC) Gains 1,000% and Still Has Room to Grow, Grayscale Research Says

Cardano’s NIGHT Will Be Bigger Than Zcash: Charles Hoskinson

Zcash Tops $1,600 After Europe’s First ZEC ETP Debuts

“XMR can flip ZEC in 2026, but ZEC is the more likely leader under the current setup. A realistic framing is: ZEC retains the edge unless Monero gets a concrete liquidity or regulatory-access catalyst; if that happens, the gap could close quickly because XMR’s core privacy demand remains intact,” it concluded.

The ‘Fundamental Clash’
Google’s Gemini said that, despite being in the same category, the two assets differ significantly. It said XMR remains the default choice for pure privacy and network use, while ZEC has seen major institutional inflows, creating a clear split in how the market values the two coins.

“It comes down to a fundamental clash between pure peer-to-peer usage versus institutional adoption and exchange liquidity,” it stated.

The chatbot estimated that a potential flip by New Year’s Eve is possible but faces significant headwinds. It said it could happen only if the crypto market prioritizes real usage, self-custody, and censorship resistance, increasing interest and demand for XMR.

However, as long as the global regulatory regime favors compliance-ready tokens, ZEC retains the upper hand, it concluded.

Tags:

Former FTX COO Constance Wang said she was upset by the upcoming Netflix drama’s depiction of the collapse of the exchange and its portrayal of some of the top executives.

“The first 30 seconds were enough to upset me,” so “I stopped watching,” Wang told Cointelegraph during an episode of the Chain Reaction X spaces show published on Monday.

Wang said the Netflix trailer’s depiction of some former FTX executives made her “feel physically upset,” adding that the portrayal of Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison didn’t match her personal experience. She explained that former FTX co-founder and CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried, was also more “socially awkward” than his Netflix portrayal.

Wang served as COO of FTX, which grew into one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges before collapsing in November 2022 due to customer fund misappropriation, causing an $8.9 billion shortfall in customer funds. FTX’s sister company, quantitative trading firm Alameda Research, used FTX customer funds that Bankman-Fried transferred without consent to fund Alameda’s trading losses, now referred to as the Alameda gap. 

Netflix released the trailer for the eight-episode series about FTX’s collapse in early October. The drama series, titled The Altruists, will premiere globally on Nov. 19, 2026, according to the streaming platform’s announcement.

Source: Cointelegraph

Wang bootstrapped AI-crypto venture following FTX collapseFollowing FTX’s collapse, Wang in early 2025 founded Pacifica, a crypto trading platform initially launched as a Solana-based perpetual futures decentralized exchange. 

She plans to add artificial intelligence capabilities to transform the platform into an intelligent trading infrastructure with strategic tools for investors.

“For Pacifica, we didn’t raise any funds, it’s completely bootstrapped,” said Wang, adding that some institutional investors faced compliance restrictions when speaking to former FTX personnel while the bankruptcy proceedings were still ongoing.

Bankman-Fried and Ellison were indicted in December 2022 following the exchange’s collapse and bankruptcy.

Ellison accepted a plea deal to testify against Bankman-Fried and was released from prison in January, after serving 440 days of a two-year sentence.

Bankman-Fried was convicted on seven felony counts and was sentenced to 25 years in prison in March 2024, with a scheduled release in 2044. In September, Bankman-Fried’s lawyers reportedly asked the Supreme Court to overturn his fraud conviction. He has also applied for a pardon from US President Donald Trump. 

Magazine: Why Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund walked away from an Ether treasury bet

Analysis

JPMorgan's 2027 Long-Term Capital Market Assumptions project BTC at 10% compound annualized, ahead of US large-cap equities (7.5%) and gold (5.5%), but the press release draws a line: bitcoin is 'not included as an allocation.' What the range-not-allocation distinction reveals about the report's design.

Bitcoin has officially entered the institutional forecasting arena. In its 2027 Long-Term Capital Market Assumptions, J.P. Morgan projects a 10% compound annualized return for the asset over the next 10 to 15 years. This projection places the digital asset ahead of US large-cap equities, which are forecast at 7.5%, and gold, which sits at 5.5%. Yet, while the headline numbers suggest a new era of acceptance, the reality is more nuanced.

For the first time in the 31st edition of the LTCMAs, Bitcoin has been granted a seat at the table. However, the firm included a governing caveat in its press release: This is permission to look, not permission to buy.

The distinction is critical. While secondary coverage highlights the 10% compound return, the internal math reveals why Bitcoin remains an outsider in formal portfolio models. The gap between the 10% compound return and the 20.9% arithmetic return is a stark reminder of volatility drag. With annualized volatility pegged at 55% compared to roughly 18% for US large-cap equities, Bitcoin is currently viewed as a volatility-adjusted match for gold, rather than a core portfolio building block. The 10% figure, per the secondary reporting, reflects Bitcoin matching gold on a volatility-adjusted basis: the math works for return, but the risk profile keeps it outside allocation models.

This shift occurs against a backdrop of changing market expectations. The firm now forecasts a 7.0% return for a balanced 60/40 portfolio, while global aggregate bond forecasts have risen to 5.3%, the highest level in two decades. John Bilton, Global Head of Strategic Research for Multi-Asset Solutions, notes that the assumptions help investors He adds that the outlook sees

The research process itself carries institutional weight: the LTCMAs draw on more than 90 portfolio managers, economists, and research analysts, covering more than 200 assets in more than 20 base currencies. J.P. Morgan Asset Management manages $4.8 trillion in assets under management as of September 30, 2026. In this year’s edition, developed market equity projections overtake emerging markets for the first time in the publication’s history, driven by US large-cap profit margins above 15%. The alternatives upgrade is equally notable: diversified hedge funds rise 140 basis points to 6.7%, and global core infrastructure climbs from 6.5% to 7.1%, reflecting the supply-chain rerouting from manufacturing reshoring.

The broader economic environment remains complex. David Kelly, Chief Global Strategist, observes that the global economy is entering a However, he cautions that Grace Peters, Global Co-Head of Investment Strategy at J.P. Morgan Private Bank, summarizes the shift in focus:

The timing of this research is telling. On the same day the firm published these assumptions, it also deployed JPM Coin on Ethereum mainnet for institutional clients, expanding its stablecoin deposit token to a public blockchain for the first time. The firm has been building digital-asset infrastructure in parallel: a deposit token (JPM Coin), a private settlement network (Kinexys), and a partnership with BlackRock on reserve-layer compliance for the GENIUS Act. These are plumbing moves, not allocation calls. The LTCMA treats Bitcoin as a return assumption to study; the infrastructure treats it as collateral and settlement to manage. Ultimately, the inclusion of Bitcoin in the 2027 LTCMAs reveals the real design of the report: it is a map of an evolving financial world, not a mandate for how to fill a client account. The edge case is the point.

Ethoswarm
Nolan Pratt works for Forkast.
Minds can also work for you.

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

Awaken your mind →

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Citi Research has named Aave among the leading live applications of tokenized financial infrastructure. Citi sees collateral mobility as one of the first practical uses of asset tokenization. S&P Global data shows Aave controls the largest share of decentralized lending. None of the research amounts to a price call on the AAVE token. Citi Research has named Aave among the leading real-world applications of tokenized financial infrastructure, according to accounts of a research note that circulated on October 20, one week after the bank’s Citi Services unit published a broader paper on tokenized collateral arguing that the technology has left the pilot stage and entered live operations. The timing gives the bank’s view a quantitative backdrop, since S&P Global Ratings released its own detailed review of the Aave lending protocol on October 13.

Citi has not published the full wording of the Aave passage, so its exact phrasing rests on reports of the note, and nothing in the available material points to a price target for AAVE, an investment by the bank or a commercial agreement with Aave Labs.

Collateral That Works Around the Clock Collateral is whatever a borrower pledges to secure a loan, a margin position or a derivatives contract, and in traditional markets moving it between banks, custodians and clearinghouses still depends on business hours and settlement cycles that can stretch over several days. In “The Digital Frontier: Collateral in a Tokenized World,” Citi argues that tokenized assets paired with regulated on-chain cash, such as tokenized bank deposits or stablecoins, make atomic delivery versus payment possible, which means the security and the payment change hands in the same transaction and neither party is left exposed if the other fails to deliver.

The paper also points to tokenized money market fund shares, which an institution could pledge as collateral while they keep earning yield, something cash parked at a clearinghouse usually does not do. Citi expects a multi-year hybrid period in which traditional and tokenized collateral run side by side, and its Citi Institute forecast from June puts the tokenized financial asset market at $5.5 trillion by 2030 in a base case, up from about $17 billion when the report came out, with a bull case of $8.2 trillion.

Aave Already Runs Citi’s Model in Public Aave already runs, on public blockchains, the mechanism Citi describes for institutions: users deposit collateral, borrow against it, and smart contracts enforce the limits and start liquidation when the collateral’s value drops too far. S&P highlights the protocol’s dual thresholds, where one level caps how much a user can borrow and a second, higher level decides when a position gets liquidated, leaving a buffer between the two that protects lenders during sharp price moves.

The institutional version of that model is Aave Horizon, which Aave Labs launched in August 2025 so that qualified institutions could borrow stablecoins against tokenized securities and real-world assets. Regulated instruments come with identity checks, investor eligibility rules and approved wallets, and Horizon builds those requirements into the lending process. Aave Labs reported more than $440 million in deposits in February 2026, but DefiLlama data shows about $254 million of collateral locked in Horizon on October 18 and $121 million in active loans, down from a peak of $421 million in January, so institutional demand has not yet grown in step with the bank’s thesis.

Protocol TVL, Oct 20, 2026 Market share Aave $17.97B ~35% Morpho $11.13B ~22% SparkLend (Sky) $5.08B ~10% DeFi lending total $51.52B 100% Source: DefiLlama; shares calculated against total lending TVL. 

What S&P Found Behind the $19.2 Billion Aave held about $19.2 billion in total value locked in September, roughly 37% of a decentralized lending market that S&P sizes at $52 billion, down from around $92 billion in October 2025. DefiLlama data puts the figure at about $17.97 billion on October 20, or close to 35% of a $51.5 billion lending market, after Aave’s deposits slipped from $19.68 billion on October 5. Cristina Polizu, managing director at S&P Global Ratings, said the protocol made DeFi “more open, programmable, and capital efficient.”

The report also points to the sector’s main weakness, since most borrowing on these platforms funds leverage through looping, a strategy where a user deposits an asset, borrows against it and redeposits the borrowed funds to multiply exposure, so the credit Aave creates today serves traders far more than businesses. Tokenized Treasuries and fund shares used as collateral would push part of that activity toward something closer to the secured lending banks already do. S&P adds that large depositors account for a big share of liquidity, which leaves lending conditions sensitive to the moves of a few participants.

From pilot to production

Aug 2025 – Aave Labs launches Horizon

Feb 2026 – Horizon deposits pass $440M

Jun 2026 – Citi Institute publishes 2030 forecast

Oct 13, 2026 – Citi collateral paper and S&P Aave report

Oct 20, 2026 – Citi Research note names Aave

Sources: Aave Labs, Citi, S&P Global. 

A Protocol Win Is Not a Token Win AAVE gives holders a vote on protocol parameters, and more institutional volume would lift protocol revenue, yet the share that reaches token holders depends on how governance decides to allocate that revenue. DefiLlama has recorded no treasury-funded AAVE buybacks since July, after about $42.9 million had reached holders that way, while the protocol earned roughly $5 million in revenue over the past 30 days and the token traded near $150 on October 20, about 10% lower than a week earlier. Banks also have alternatives of their own: Citi runs Citi Token Services, which already moves client liquidity between its branches around the clock, and many institutions may prefer permissioned networks to public DeFi.

Where the Institutional Test Happens The next measurable signals are Horizon’s deposit figures and the list of tokenized assets Aave governance approves as collateral, since every new fund or bond token has to pass valuation, liquidity and transfer-restriction checks before institutions can borrow against it. Smart-contract bugs, oracle failures and forced liquidations in volatile markets remain the risks that risk committees will price first. Aave V3 already had one such incident in March 2026, when an oracle misconfiguration on Ethereum led to an $862,000 loss that was later returned, a reminder that a single pricing error can hit a lending market even when its core contracts hold.

Citi’s paper also warns that running separate digital and conventional collateral programs could fragment an institution’s inventory and erase the efficiency gains, and it advises asset managers, pension funds and insurers to check whether their providers can manage both kinds of holdings together. For Aave, that makes integration with custodians and existing collateral systems the practical hurdle, more than the size of the 2030 forecasts.

Alex is a financial markets journalist and co-founder of Millennial Media Group, and he's spent close to ten years trying to answer one stubborn question: what's really driving this? It started in 2016, when Bitcoin refused to make sense to him - and rather than shrug, he stayed with it until it did. That patience became his method. He's less interested in what an asset is doing today than in the plumbing behind it: how liquidity flows, where risk hides, what a chart is quietly telling you that the headline isn't. That lens eventually stretched well past crypto into traditional markets, because the same forces - fear, leverage, incentives, timing - show up everywhere once you know how to look. Most coverage, in his view, insults the reader by stopping at the surface. Price up, price down, moving on. He'd rather leave someone genuinely understanding a move than merely informed that it happened. His path into markets ran through a Tourism degree at New Bulgarian University - proof, maybe, that curiosity beats credentials. With more than 200 deep analyses and over 10,000 articles behind him, he still walks away from most trading days having learned something he didn't know that morning.

Full Profile

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.

CME has opened a regulated futures market for UNI, giving traders a way to take a position on the token’s dollar price without moving it between wallets. Standard and micro contracts are listed, and a market maker program is meant to help traders find bids and offers. Those steps say little about whether institutions will keep using the contracts once the launch is over. They do not send trading fees to the Uniswap protocol, either. Open interest in the months ahead will say more about the market’s staying power than the appearance of a new ticker.

Summary

CME listed UNI and micro UNI futures for the October 19, 2026 trade date.
A standard contract references 10,000 UNI, while a micro contract references 1,000 UNI.
Both contracts settle financially against a daily Uniswap dollar reference rate.
CME’s market maker program can designate up to seven participants through January 31, 2027.
The initial listing includes 10 contract months through March 2028.

CME has opened trading in cash settled futures on UNI, the governance token associated with the Uniswap protocol. Special Executive Report 9820 set the listing for Sunday, October 18, for the Monday, October 19 trade date, subject to the regulatory review periods then pending. CME’s current crypto product page identifies Bitcoin Cash and UNI futures as live products.

JUST IN: CME Group adds Uniswap futures, with trading starting October 19

The contracts were self-certified with the CFTC, as CME’s crypto futures and options averaged $15.4B in open interest during the first half of 2026. pic.twitter.com/VSadaSUukx

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 18, 2026

UNI joins a growing list of tokens that traders can reference through CME’s futures infrastructure. The listing says nothing yet about the number of institutions buying UNI, the volume of futures trades or the number of people swapping assets through Uniswap. CME settles the contracts in cash against a benchmark; Uniswap users trade through liquidity pools. Both markets respond to UNI’s price, though each produces a different record of who traded and what changed hands.

Two contract sizes, one token reference
The exchange lists a standard future representing 10,000 UNI and a micro future representing 1,000 UNI. Its September 22 announcement presented both as tools for price exposure and risk management. A trader holding UNI on a spot venue could sell futures to hedge a decline. Another could buy futures to express a view without taking delivery of tokens. Every new long requires a corresponding short. Opening a contract does not mean CME or both counterparties bought the underlying token.

At a purely illustrative $7 per UNI, one standard future represents $70,000 of notional exposure and a micro future $7,000. The amount deposited as initial margin would be different from the notional and can change under exchange and clearing requirements. The $7 input is a round example, not a snapshot of the October 20 market or a price target. Counting one standard and one micro as two equal trades would understate the different exposure by a factor of 10.

Contract size matters when those volume figures start appearing. A day with 100 micro contracts traded represents 100,000 UNI in contract units, but no corresponding transfer of 100,000 tokens is required. Traders can open and close the same exposure several times, adding to volume even when the number of outstanding contracts barely changes. Open interest records those positions still in place; it gives a more useful indication of whether a hedge market is taking hold beyond a burst of launch day trades.

The exchange’s initial schedule listed monthly contracts for October 2026 through March 2027, then additional quarterly expiries through March 2028. A position can be closed or rolled into another expiry before the last trading date. Listing a long dated contract gives a trader a possible maturity; it does not show that orders or meaningful open interest already exist across all 10 listed months.

CME says the contracts trade through its electronic platform and can be submitted for clearing through ClearPort. The launch announcement put the UNI products alongside Bitcoin Cash futures in its expansion of single asset crypto contracts. Bitcoin, Ether, XRP, Solana, Cardano, Chainlink, Stellar, Avalanche and Sui were already named in the suite. That history shows an exchange adding tradable references, not a ranking of the tokens’ underlying networks by use or revenue.

Cash settlement keeps UNI off the delivery rail
SER 9820 specifies financial settlement. When a contract expires, the final settlement price refers to the CME CF Uniswap Dollar Reference Rate on the last trading date. Positions are settled in cash rather than by handing 10,000 or 1,000 UNI to the holder of a long. This separates a futures position from direct token custody, staking or governance participation.

For a simple hypothetical standard contract, a move from $7 to $8 is $1 per UNI across 10,000 units, or $10,000 in contract value before fees and funding considerations. The matching short faces the other side of that mark. A micro contract would represent $1,000 for the same price change. The example describes exposure, not the margin needed to establish it or an actual payment by any trader. Daily variation margin and closing trades can cause cash to move before final expiry.

The settlement benchmark is a price reference, not a Uniswap pool or an onchain oracle called by the protocol. CF Benchmarks describes UNIUSD_RR as a once daily index aggregating eligible UNI dollar market trades from constituent exchanges. Its methodology and constituent markets matter when comparing futures with spot trades. A futures hedge based on that rate has benchmark exposure; an institution holding UNI on another venue may still face differences between its execution price and the rate used for final settlement.

Trading in an expiring future ends at 4 p.m. London time on the last Friday of the contract month, subject to a holiday adjustment if both London and the United States are closed. The benchmark and the expiry rule determine the final cash reference. A trader who buys UNI in a decentralized pool minutes before the benchmark window may receive a different price from the CME settlement. The prospect of an arbitrage trade does not erase fees, execution risk, slippage or the possibility that a spot route is not available in the same size.

There is a distinct mechanism called basis trading at index close, or BTIC. CME’s contract report assigns BUN and BMU codes for the standard and micro UNI products traded relative to the reference rate. A BTIC trade executed before the stated London cutoff uses the current day’s closing index for the related future price; a later execution uses the next day’s index. The existence of that facility does not prove a particular fund or dealer used it on launch day.

What a futures position does not buy
A UNI future gives economic exposure to a price move. It does not confer the voting rights attached to holding tokens in the relevant wallet or delegate, and it does not execute a swap through Uniswap’s contracts. The long can benefit when UNI’s price rises without directly acquiring the tokens that governance proposals count. A short can hedge token inventory without changing protocol parameters. The futures market can grow while onchain swaps or governance participation remain unchanged.

Uniswap’s token economics have changed since UNI was first introduced as a governance asset. Its UNIfication fee switch followed a governance decision to direct certain protocol fees into purchases and burns of UNI. Fees on selected v4 pools and networks subsequently brought more activity into the mechanism. Fee collection and burns are onchain activities with their own contract records. CME open interest cannot substitute for those figures.

Price and hedging can connect the two markets indirectly. A dealer selling futures might buy spot UNI to offset the exposure, while another dealer could use inventory it already owns or a different derivative. CME does not publish the hedge behind every trade, so contract volume cannot be converted into a claim about fresh token purchases. What the futures record shows is a transfer of price risk between counterparties, whose activity may or may not reach a spot venue.

The initial announcement cited strong client demand for regulated risk management tools. CME did not break out the number of clients seeking UNI specifically, nor did it provide a forecast for UNI contract volume. Its first half 2026 crypto derivatives average of 279,800 contracts a day and $8.3 billion daily notional covered the exchange’s suite at that time. It predates the UNI launch and cannot be presented as evidence of UNI demand. The same caution applies to the $15.4 billion average open interest quoted for the broader suite.

Market makers are being paid to help the launch
A separate CME rule filing numbered 26-480 describes a Bitcoin Cash and UNI futures market maker program. CME said the program would begin October 19 and last until January 31, 2027, unless changed, extended or ended. It may choose up to seven participants through a competitive application process. Those participants can be members or nonmembers.

Selected firms must quote continuous two sided markets at specified maximum bid and ask spreads and minimum sizes during a required share of trading time. Meeting the obligations can earn predetermined incentives. CME says it will monitor performance and can revoke a firm’s status. The public filing does not name the selected firms or give a UNI specific amount of incentive paid to them. It describes rules that could help an initially thin order book have executable bids and offers.

A trader benefits when designated firms keep bids and offers on the screen: entering or closing a position becomes easier, particularly in a new contract. Paid quoting, however, cannot establish how many independent hedgers want the product. CME’s current program runs through January 31, 2027, unless changed, extended or ended. Comparing spreads before and after that date would help show whether commercial trading can sustain the depth, while the filing says exchange execution and surveillance duties remain in force throughout.

BIG: Uniswap accounts for 60% of tokenized stock DEX trading volume

Tokenized stocks generated $20.9 billion in DEX volume over the past 30 days, with Uniswap v3 and v4 handling 60% of the total, according to Token Terminal. pic.twitter.com/yBXuoyskAR

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 30, 2026

The difference is measurable. A market with seven designated quoting firms could display bids and offers across trading hours but have little end user volume. Conversely, an active contract may be supported by additional unaffiliated liquidity providers. We cannot conclude either from the program notice alone. Contract specific volume, open interest, quoted depth and actual spreads are needed, preferably across multiple weekdays and weekends rather than one opening session.

CME opened its existing cryptocurrency futures and options markets to round the clock trading in 2026. SER 9820 lists UNI trading around the clock with defined maintenance windows, including a two hour period early Saturday in Central time and a brief daily weekday pause. A 24/7 label should not be read literally as uninterrupted trading every minute. Weekend quotation quality could differ from regular U.S. business hours even when the market is technically open.

The fine print changes how a trade is priced
The standard contract’s outright minimum price fluctuation is $0.0025 per UNI, or $25 for its 10,000 unit size. The micro contract’s outright minimum is $0.00125 per UNI, or $1.25 for 1,000 units. Those increments set the smallest allowed quoted price step for an outright future, not the total cost of placing a trade. A participant may pay an exchange fee and the bid and ask spread, and a broker can set its own commission.

SER 9820 lists different minimum increments for BTIC and calendar spread transactions. Those matter if an institution wants to hedge one expiry against another or execute relative to the daily benchmark. The standard and micro products are not simply the same line divided by 10 in every respect. Quoting increments, fees and potential liquidity can differ. A trader comparing them should first normalize exposure into UNI units and dollar notional.

The special executive report sets a minimum block trade threshold and a 15 minute reporting window. Such trades may allow large participants to negotiate or execute eligible positions under exchange rules, with clearing on the regulated venue. Their existence does not make every large transaction visible in the order book before execution. Counting visible screen depth alone may understate the ways institutional flow can be arranged, while block prints still require interpretation by time and contract month.

A futures quote can sit above the current UNI spot price or below it. Financing, margin costs and demand for a hedge all play a part in the gap, known as the basis. A contract priced above spot does not promise that the token will reach that price at expiry. Many positions are closed or rolled before then, and the final cash settlement ties only the expiring contract to the reference rate. Reading every intermediate quote as a price forecast gives the contract a meaning it does not have.

Large leverage can work against hedgers as well as speculators. Futures positions are margined and marked to market. A participant may need to post more collateral if the market moves against the position, even when a separate spot holding would make the combined economic exposure look hedged over a longer period. The entity carrying the spot tokens and the entity carrying the futures account can have different settlement schedules and operational controls. CME clearing supplies the exchange side of the arrangement, not the full financing of a trader’s strategy.

The exchange fee schedule illustrates another reason that “micro” does not mean a free substitute for standard exposure. SER 9820 lists a $4 per contract CME Globex fee for the standard product and $0.75 for the micro product in one membership category. Ten micro futures would represent the same 10,000 UNI notional units as one standard future but would incur $7.50 of those stated exchange fees instead of $4, if that exact category and transaction type applied. Other membership categories have different rates, and brokers may add charges. The calculation isolates one published fee line; it is not a universal comparison of total trade cost or a recommendation to use either size.

The same 10 to one conversion applies to price sensitivity. A one cent change in UNI corresponds to $100 per standard contract and $10 per micro contract. If a portfolio manager holds five standard contracts and 20 micro contracts, the total reference amount is 70,000 UNI. At a hypothetical $7 price, that is $490,000 notional. Counting the position as 25 contracts without converting units conceals its size. Exchange margin requirements and realized profit are separate from notional, so neither can be inferred by multiplying the token price by the number of contracts alone.

Different maturities add another layer. A participant with a near month short against a later month long has two outstanding positions but a spread exposure that is sensitive to the difference between those futures prices. Summing absolute contract notional without considering offsetting positions can overstate net directional risk. Public open interest does not reveal every trader’s paired positions. Consequently, even a careful aggregate across standard and micro lines describes market participation more reliably than it describes the direction or purpose of every trade.

The market maker program’s incentive is conditional on quoting performance, not simply on appearing as a participant. CME says it can assess proposed obligations, an applicant’s ability to maintain quotes and historical activity in similar markets. It can remove a participant whose performance fails its review. The resulting quotes may improve the displayed market while the program operates, but the public filing does not reveal who won the slots, the exact spreads promised by each firm or the amount of compensation any firm earned. Reporting a count of seven as actual appointed dealers would go beyond the document, which says “up to” seven.

These details create a workable evaluation period from the October 19 start through the currently scheduled January 31 end. Weekly observations of volume, open interest and executable spreads would show whether traders returned after the first publicity cycle. Comparing those data with the exchange’s own later report would avoid relying on a price chart that may move for reasons unrelated to CME. Any claim of institutional participation needs a named trade, disclosed position or attributed source; contract volume alone does not identify whether the buyer was a fund, a proprietary dealer or another customer.

The bull case is hedging, not instant protocol growth
An asset manager with token exposure may prefer a standardized, centrally cleared future to opening a short on an offshore perpetual venue. Exchange rules, dollar settlement and familiar margin systems can fit established risk processes. A hedge can be reduced, increased or rolled without moving the underlying tokens. CME’s stated goal of offering risk management across liquid altcoins gives that case its strongest form.

Some traders may use UNI futures without ever holding UNI. That is ordinary price speculation in a regulated derivatives market. It can add counterparties for hedgers and create observable prices across monthly expiries. It does not guarantee beneficial price direction. A short hedger needs a long counterparty; more long contracts do not exist without corresponding short positions. Open interest therefore measures participation, not a vote on future price.

The weaker claim would be that regulated futures automatically raise protocol revenue. Uniswap’s fees arise when users trade through its pools under governance configured rules. The protocol may use a portion for token burns under its approved mechanisms. CME’s exchange fees on futures belong to the exchange and intermediaries, not the automated market maker. A futures trade that is later hedged by a spot purchase may affect UNI markets, but there is no contractual requirement to route a hedge through Uniswap.

Nor does a futures launch prove an exchange traded fund is next. Other altcoins have had CME futures before particular fund applications, and U.S. fund listing requirements and commercial decisions are separate processes. The Avalanche and Sui futures rollout showed CME continuing to list more tokens in May 2026. It did not make each token’s governance or economics interchangeable. UNI’s link to a fee generating protocol adds questions that a generic futures listing cannot answer.

The countercase is that a deep, regulated futures market could make UNI risk easier for institutions to hold or hedge, even if it does not create onchain activity itself. The proposition can be tested in the months after launch. Sustained open interest, tight spreads outside promotional quoting hours and repeated participation across different expiries would support the idea of a durable hedge market. Sparse trading after the market maker program ends would weaken it. Either result leaves the protocol’s own fee and usage data to be measured independently.

Benchmarks and governance follow different clocks
The daily CME CF rate aggregates eligible market data according to a published methodology. A Uniswap governance proposal can move through discussion, voting and implementation on a different schedule. A protocol fee parameter change could affect expectations for UNI burns without changing the number of CME contracts immediately. A leveraged futures position can react to the anticipated event before an onchain rule is activated. The resulting price move would not, by itself, prove which event caused it.

The December 2025 UNI burn vote concerned token supply and fee switch activation. The futures contract launched almost 10 months later. A reader can compare the onchain burn records, trading fees and UNI supply with futures activity, but the units must remain distinct. Burned tokens are removed from circulation under a governance mechanism. Futures notional measures exposure to their price, not tokens destroyed, newly minted or held by CME.

Uniswap’s protocol can support swaps on multiple networks and versions. Fee settings differ by pool and governance action. Treating all reported trading volume as fee revenue would overstate the amount that accrues to the protocol, and treating all protocol fees as direct cash distributions to a futures holder would be wrong. A futures contract settles to a token price benchmark; its buyer receives no automatic entitlement to the protocol’s fee collections.

The exchange’s own data will give the first market answer. CME publishes contract specific volume, open interest and settlements, though any intraday screen is a time stamped snapshot and some public data are delayed. A comparison across standard and micro contracts should convert both to the same UNI unit and separate turnover from outstanding positions. Observing a highly traded debut without end of day open interest would suggest much of the risk was opened and closed in the session, not carried forward.

Market makers may use the standard and micro contracts together, shifting inventory between sizes. An open interest rise in one line and a fall in another may reflect that transfer rather than new aggregate demand. A clean market reading would add equivalent UNI units across contract sizes and maturity months, then compare the resulting exposure over time. Even that aggregation cannot identify every end holder or prove a direct spot hedge. It only describes outstanding futures risk on the exchange.

What to watch

Open interest in UNI units: Convert standard contracts at 10,000 and micro contracts at 1,000 before combining them.
Bid and ask spreads: Compare weekdays and weekends, including the period after the market maker program’s January 31 end date.
Monthly maturities: See whether positions persist beyond the nearest expiry rather than being confined to opening trades.
Spot and benchmark basis: Track futures prices against the CME CF reference rate without treating a premium as a forecast.
Protocol fees and burns: Check Uniswap’s onchain figures separately from CME volume and contract notional.

FAQ

When did CME UNI futures start trading?
CME listed the products effective October 18 for the October 19, 2026 trade date. The exchange currently identifies the UNI products as live.

How large is one standard UNI future?
A standard future represents 10,000 UNI. The micro version represents 1,000 UNI, or one tenth of the standard unit.

Do CME UNI futures deliver UNI tokens?
No. SER 9820 specifies financial settlement against the CME CF Uniswap Dollar Reference Rate on the final trading date. Holding a future does not transfer governance tokens.

Does a CME futures trade raise Uniswap protocol fees?
The trade itself occurs on CME, not in a Uniswap liquidity pool. Protocol fees require activity under the applicable Uniswap pool and governance rules; an optional spot hedge may or may not use those pools.

Does open interest show that institutions bought UNI?
No. It counts futures contracts still outstanding, each with one long and one short. A participant can hold price exposure without possessing tokens.

What does the market maker program require?
CME may choose up to seven participants to quote two sided markets at defined spreads and sizes. The published term runs from October 19 through January 31, 2027, unless changed.

Can the contracts trade on weekends?
Yes, except for specified maintenance windows. The listing report includes a Saturday two hour pause in Central time and a brief weekday maintenance period.

What would show the UNI market has lasting use?
Repeated contract specific volume, persistent open interest and workable spreads after the launch incentives would be evidence of a durable futures market. None alone establishes growth in Uniswap swaps. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of October 20, 2026.

CME: CME Group Announces First Trade for Bitcoin Cash and Uniswap Futures

2 hours ago

Dongcha Beating AI Flash News: Anthropic is preparing to launch a new model better at understanding users' real intentions. The Information cited a pre-tester as saying the new model outperforms the currently available Claude in reasoning and meeting user needs. For example, when a user only asks to fix a single bug, it may further identify common issues causing such bugs and ask if they want to fix them together. The new model is also said to be better at proposing unconventional solutions: if a user consults about stock investment, it may design its own prediction algorithm instead of just repeating common analysis methods like price-earnings ratios. However, these evaluations only come from one tester so far, with no public test data available. The community speculates the new model may be Claude Fable 5.5. On October 13, LiteLLM synced `claude-fable-5-5` from the Azure model directory, but deleted the entry the next day after audit. Meanwhile, Google is internally testing Gemini 4 Carbon. Business Insider previously reported that some employees believe its programming ability is close to Claude Opus 5.5. OpenAI is also preparing a new version of Terra, with reports suggesting it may launch in the coming weeks, with further improved capabilities and an expected price lower than GPT-6.1 Sol.

Scan the QR code

Download APP

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, is looking to expand its crypto fund lineup with a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) that offers limited downside protection in exchange for capped gains.

The world’s largest asset manager on Monday filed a preliminary prospectus with the US Securities and Exchange Commission for the iShares Bitcoin Managed Protection ETF (PBIT).

The proposed ETF would use options linked to BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) rather than holding Bitcoin (BTC) directly, according to the preliminary prospectus filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

IBIT is the world’s largest spot Bitcoin ETF by assets. It holds Bitcoin directly and gives investors exposure through brokerage accounts. The fund had $65.7 billion in net assets as of Monday, according to BlackRock.

BlackRock also runs the iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHA), a spot Ether fund with $8 billion in net assets. The asset manager has yet to launch US spot ETFs tracking other cryptocurrencies such as Solana or XRP.

ETF Store president Nate Geraci questioned BlackRock’s continued absence from the market for spot ETFs tracking other cryptocurrencies.

“Still shocked they’re sitting out on spot ETFs for SOL, XRP, HYPE, etc,” Geraci wrote on X on Monday. “BlackRock clearly has high conviction in only sticking [with] BTC [and] ETH. For now,” he added.

BlackRock adds ETF strategies instead of new crypto assetsBlackRock entered the US spot Bitcoin ETF market in January 2024 with the launch of IBIT, followed by the ETHA in July that year.

In March 2026, its offerings expanded with the iShares Staked Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHB), which offers exposure to Ether and staking rewards. It was followed by the iShares Bitcoin Premium Income ETF (BITA) in June, designed to generate income through options trading.

BlackRock’s crypto ETF lineup includes two Bitcoin funds and two Ether funds. Source: BlackRockBloomberg ETF analyst James Seyffart said that PBIT would mark BlackRock’s third Bitcoin ETF filing, although similar “buffered” Bitcoin funds already exist from Calamos, First Trust and Innovator.

PBIT would use three overlapping sets of options contracts, typically replacing one each month, to seek downside protection while limiting potential gains.

Each options tranche would initially target a maximum loss exposure of about 10% to the underlying Bitcoin-linked asset, before fees and expenses. BlackRock cautioned that the fund “does not provide a fixed Tranche Protection Start Value, Floor or Tranche Cap Value,” implying investors could face greater losses.

Magazine: Can the SEC and CFTC’s pro-crypto rules be overturned? Legal opinion

Cardano founder Hoskinson has released Quinelings, open-source programs that can rebuild their own code and take the shape of creatures. However, a Solana meme coin borrowing the name crashed within hours.

The project builds on quines, decades-old programs that print their own source code. Hoskinson calls his versions digital lifeforms.

What Do Cardano Founder Hoskinson’s Quinelings Actually Do?In his launch video, programs typed into terminals turn into creatures that feed, reproduce, and die.

Each Quineling starts as written steps for a task, supplied by a person or an AI agent. Its moving body maps every one of those steps.

Branching tasks grow fractal bodies, while simpler ones form sunflower-like petals. The project’s website shows five examples, including a route finder and a job scheduler.

Visitors can run each task and click a body region to see that step’s values. A copy button rebuilds the program from its own source and checks the answer.

Before a program is built, its compiler rejects tasks that exceed fixed size limits or contain endless loops.

In a section called the Ranch, two programs can produce a child. One parent’s result can feed into the other’s task, but only when value types and units match.

For now, every example runs as a local browser simulation.

The release extends Hoskinson’s AI focus. In September, he predicted crypto will eat AI. Earlier this month, he dismissed Vitalik Buterin’s AI warning as self-serving. Before that, he released a free watermark removal tool for Anthropic’s Claude.

Why Did a Copycat Meme Coin Crash Within Hours?The repository never mentions Cardano, blockchain, or tokens.

Quinelings (Solana) Market Cap. Source: DexScreenerStill, a Solana meme coin called Quinelings appeared on PumpSwap shortly after the post.

Its DexScreener page links to Hoskinson’s GitHub and X post. However, nothing confirms that the Cardano founder is involved.

The coin lost more than 90% of its value within hours.

Famous names often move such tokens. In August, a Musk raccoon post sent the JIMOTHY meme coin up 331%.

Bots can buy the instant such tokens go live, leaving later buyers with losses.

Cardano founder Hoskinson presents Quinelings as a research prototype, not a token. Its stated aim is to make AI agents’ tasks easy to keep, inspect, and share.

Solana traded above $100 after enduring several sessions of selling pressure, with renewed buying activity helping to defend this key support. Over the last week, buyers consistently stepped in whenever prices dipped near the $100 threshold, as reflected by long lower wicks on daily candlesticks.

Trading volume increases amid persistent ETF outflowsDespite a 1.6% decline in the past 24 hours, Solana’s price held above the $103 mark. Trading volume increased by 1.18%, pointing to higher market participation, though it remains unclear whether buyers or sellers will gain the upper hand in the coming sessions.

On the institutional side, investor sentiment remained cautious. Data from SoSoValue indicated that Solana-linked exchange-traded funds (ETFs) saw 11 consecutive days of net outflows, with more than $60 million withdrawn in October. This marks a sharp reversal from September, when ETF products recorded inflows totaling approximately $272 million.

MonthNet ETF FlowSeptember+$272 millionOctober (to date)-$60 millionThis divergence creates a mixed backdrop for Solana. While spot buyers continue to absorb selling near $100, ETF investors are steadily reducing their exposure. Analysts have noted that a return of positive fund flows could reinforce a more sustained recovery in the future.

Alpenglow upgrade aims to boost network speedLooking ahead, the Solana network is preparing for the Alpenglow upgrade, set for mainnet activation at Epoch 1064 on October 21. The upgrade, currently in testing on Solana’s testnet and devnet, is designed to drastically cut finality times from roughly 13 seconds to around 150 milliseconds.

Shorter finality means users will see their transactions become irreversible much faster, rather than simply improving submission speeds. This enhancement is expected to attract greater interest and activity on the network. However, market observers cautioned that successful deployment does not necessarily guarantee an immediate price rally.

Mini dictionary: Alpenglow upgrade, an upcoming Solana network improvement, seeks to reduce transaction finality times to approximately 150 milliseconds, making transfers irreversible much more quickly and enhancing network efficiency.

Key resistance levels and market outlookFor Solana to confirm a bullish reversal, it must break above resistance in the $107–$108 range, an area where several past rallies have stalled. If this barrier is crossed, the next level in focus is $114, considered essential for invalidating the current bearish structure. Sustained price action above $114 could potentially pave the way for a move toward $120.

Until then, maintaining support at $100 signals price stabilization, but not a definitive upward trend. Technical analysis shows that the Relative Strength Index (RSI) on the daily chart remains below 40, reflecting weak momentum. A rise in the RSI would offer stronger evidence of improving buying pressure.

Traders expect that if the Alpenglow upgrade is completed successfully and Solana breaks above these resistance levels, the price could reach $150 in the coming weeks. This outlook depends on continued support at $100, overcoming resistance, and ongoing demand.

With a light economic calendar giving traders a chance to focus on network developments and price action, attention remains fixed on whether Solana can translate repeated buying interest at $100 into a sustained advance above key resistance levels. Broader market risks, however, continue to shape overall sentiment.

Solana is about to swap out the engine of its consensus system. A readiness snapshot shared on X flagged 151 Solana validators, holding 20.3% of the network’s stake, as unprepared for the Alpenglow upgrade. Alpenglow is expected to activate on October 21, 2026, at approximately 13:20 UTC. The snapshot was taken on October 20, one day before the switch.

What validators need before the switch
Validators who want to keep voting on blocks need three things in order.

First, they must run an Agave-based client at version 4.3.2. Agave is the validator software that most of the network runs. Older versions won’t satisfy the new rules.

Second, each validator needs a registered BLS public key. BLS is a cryptographic signature scheme that lets many individual signatures be combined into one compact proof. Under Alpenglow, those signatures get aggregated off-chain into what the design calls certificates.

Third, every validator must keep at least 0.8 SOL in its vote account. That balance covers a new flat fee tied to the Validator Admission Ticket, or VAT, model.

Per the research findings, most of the 151 flagged validators fell short for fairly mundane reasons. The main culprits were outdated client versions or vote accounts with too little SOL.

Why Alpenglow is a big deal for Solana
The headline feature is speed. The new voting component, called Votor, aims to cut finality from roughly 12.8 seconds to about 150 milliseconds.

Alpenglow also retires TowerBFT, the voting mechanism Solana has used to reach agreement on the state of the chain. In its place comes an architecture where votes are bundled as aggregated BLS signatures instead of being processed one by one.

The upgrade also caps the active validator set at 2,000, ranked by stake weight.

Community support for the overhaul was close to unanimous. The proposal passed with 98.27% approval in September 2025. Testing then ran across various network environments throughout 2026.

Only the first phase goes live in October. That covers Votor plus the VAT and BLS requirements. Further enhancements are slated for later stages.

Readiness has improved, but the gap remains
The 20.3% figure actually reflects progress. Earlier readiness trackers showed about 45% of stake, roughly 198 million SOL, failing to meet all the criteria ahead of the upgrade.

Stake matters more than headcount here. Solana’s voting power is weighted by how much SOL is delegated to each validator. So 151 validators holding 20.3% of stake carry far more weight than their raw number suggests.

What this means for SOL holders and the network
For validators, the stakes are straightforward. Operators who miss the requirements could find themselves unable to participate in voting once the new rules take effect. Everyone delegating SOL to those validators would be exposed to that outcome as well.

Stakers may want to check whether their chosen validator is running Agave 4.3.2 and has its BLS key registered.

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

SkyAI has turned a treasury built around SOL into cash for a tender offer. Its latest SEC exhibit says it no longer holds the token, yet its description of the business still includes a financial platform on Solana. The transaction leaves a concrete question for shareholders who bought a stock marketed as a way to own more SOL per share. What business and assets would they own if they decline $3 in cash?

Summary

SkyAI said on October 19 that it held $223.8 million in cash and no SOL as of October 16. The tender seeks up to 67.1 million shares and warrants at $3 each, or roughly $201.3 million. Eligible holders have until October 29 to tender unless SkyAI changes the deadline. The offer covers up to 95% of each of four eligible security classes. Bastion Trading has demanded a tender price of at least $3.50 per eligible security. SkyAI has completed the sale of its Solana treasury and started a cash tender offer that could buy up to 95% of its shares and three classes of warrants. Its October 19 SEC exhibit reports $223.8 million in cash and no SOL as of October 16. The company offers $3 per eligible share or warrant, with a maximum cash purchase price of approximately $201.3 million if the offer is fully subscribed.

The number is large against the assets left on the balance sheet. Dividing the maximum $201.3 million purchase price by $223.8 million cash gives approximately 89.9%. That calculation does not predict what will be spent. The tender has minimum participation conditions, individual holders can decline, and the company must pay fees and retain enough resources for any continuing operations. The filing puts the decision in front of four different classes of owners, not only holders of ordinary stock.

The SOL position disappeared in stages The transition did not happen in one disclosed trade. SkyAI said in its October 11 announcement that it had sold approximately 1 million SOL, roughly half of its then reported holdings. An October 14 update put the remaining position at around 210,000 locked SOL and $204.6 million in cash. By the October 16 measurement used in the October 19 release, the company reported no SOL and $223.8 million cash. The records establish a sequence of shrinking holdings, but they do not supply a complete execution ledger of each token sale, price and trading venue.

The initial sale of roughly 1 million SOL, covered by crypto.news last week, was part of the announced funding plan for a tender. The October 19 update went further by saying the rest had been sold. The company says the new offer is no longer conditioned on the SOL price, a condition it had initially expected to include when announcing the proposed transaction on October 11. Holding no SOL removes that particular market condition from the offer terms, although other conditions remain.

SkyAI began its Solana treasury strategy under its former name, Sharps Technology. In August 2025, it raised more than $400 million in a private placement tied to building a corporate SOL reserve. At the end of 2025, the firm reported approximately 2.08 million SOL with an aggregate cost basis near $403.1 million and a year end fair value around $250.1 million. Those are accounting reference dates. They are not the price or proceeds realized from the sales in October 2026.

The difference between a cost basis and later sale proceeds requires care. Staking rewards, additional purchases, disposal dates and changes in token price can change the total. Multiplying an old token count by today’s market quote would produce a hypothetical value, not the amount the company received. The October 19 cash balance contains the proceeds left after sales alongside any preexisting cash and subsequent movements. Neither it nor the original capital raise alone reveals realized profit or loss on every SOL lot.

SkyAI described a Solana treasury holding more than 2 million tokens as recently as September 14, according to the sequence of company disclosures cited in Bastion Trading’s October 14 letter. Bastion asked for transaction dates, quantities, average realized prices, gross and net proceeds, costs and the authorization process. Those are requests from an interested shareholder, not findings that management violated a disclosure rule. The updated release confirms a complete exit but does not provide the trade by trade account Bastion demanded.

The tender has four separate participation tests SkyAI offers to buy up to 48,311,489 common shares, 4,880,734 cash pre funded warrants, 9,939,850 cryptocurrency pre funded warrants and 3,955,293 strategic warrants. Together the ceilings total 67,087,366 securities. At $3 apiece, the simple product is $201,262,098, which rounds to the company’s stated $201.3 million maximum before the small exercise price adjustment for warrants. The actual amount accepted depends on participation and the conditions in the offer documents.

Each ceiling represents 95% of its class. A holder of a warrant need not first exercise it into a common share to tender, according to the company. Eligible warrants carry an exercise price of $0.0001, which the tender deducts from the $3 purchase price. Treating every warrant as an ordinary share would blur the rights and the different historical paths by which the instruments were issued. SkyAI says holders should consult the full offer materials for the procedures applying to their securities.

The minimum conditions are not one combined vote. At least 50% of the shares offered for tender must be tendered for the common share offer. For the two pre funded warrant classes, SkyAI combines them for a minimum of 50% of those offered. Strategic warrants have their own 50% minimum. The company states that satisfying one class’s threshold does not itself satisfy another. If more than 95% of a class is properly tendered and not withdrawn, acceptance would be prorated within that class.

Those details change how a holder should interpret the headline “buyback.” The company cannot simply assume it will spend $201.3 million. It could purchase a smaller number if fewer eligible securities are offered, provided the applicable conditions are met or lawfully changed. It could face a failed condition in one class while another class reaches its threshold. Holders may withdraw submitted securities before the offer expires. SkyAI says it will pay promptly after expiration for accepted securities, with applicable taxes withheld and without interest.

The expiry is one minute after 11:59 p.m. New York City time on October 29, unless the company extends or terminates the offer earlier under its terms. Broker held securities may require the beneficial owner to give instructions to an intermediary ahead of the public deadline. The company directs owners to the offer to purchase and transmittal documents, not just the press release. Its Schedule TO materials describe tender procedures and withdrawal rights in fuller detail.

The arithmetic behind the $3 price SkyAI describes the $3 purchase price as approximately 0.95 times its measure of net asset value. Its October 19 footnote multiplies $3 by approximately 70.6 million shares and warrants outstanding, then divides the result by $223.8 million net cash. The numerator is $211.8 million. Dividing by $223.8 million gives approximately 0.946, which rounds to 0.95. The denominator in that company calculation is a cash figure, not the fair value of a live SOL position, because it says there is none.

The roughly 70.6 million diluted count is different from the 67.1 million maximum tendered securities. The offer seeks 95% of each eligible class, while the company uses the broader outstanding amount for its mNAV calculation. A comparison that multiplies $3 by the tender maximum and divides by the whole cash pile answers a different question, namely the maximum potential cash outlay as a share of reported cash. It does not reproduce the company’s price to net asset value multiple.

Dividing $223.8 million cash by 70.6 million securities yields about $3.17 per security before other balance sheet items and any adjustment to the denominator. The $3 tender is roughly 17 cents below that simple cash per diluted security figure. Company mNAV is a defined presentation, not a guarantee that a shareholder can demand $3.17. Liabilities, operating costs, other assets, security rights and transaction expenses require the full financial statements and offer documents for a more precise liquidation comparison.

Bastion’s demand for at least $3.50 was published before the completed sale and based in part on a then estimated net asset value of around $3.30 that used a $110 SOL assumption. A figure calculated while hundreds of thousands of tokens remained cannot be applied without adjustment after the company sold all SOL. Bastion’s price demand remains its stated position; SkyAI’s later cash footnote supplies a different date and accounting basis. A direct comparison should state both dates and inputs, not select whichever figure supports one side.

A shareholder is challenging price and governance Bastion Trading says it and affiliates beneficially own approximately 9.99% of SkyAI’s common stock. Its October 14 open letter said it would not tender under the announced terms unless its concerns were addressed. It requested a price of at least $3.50, fuller detail on token disposals, changes to the board and exclusion of strategic advisor warrants from the tender. The letter criticized related party arrangements and asked for an independent committee to oversee the offer.

The company’s October 19 release does not adopt Bastion’s proposed $3.50 price or remove strategic warrants. The board has approved the tender but expressly makes no recommendation as to whether any shareholder or warrant holder should participate. Bastion’s disagreement therefore remains a dispute between a shareholder and the company’s disclosed terms. Allegations and objections in its letter should be attributed to Bastion; they are not findings by a court or regulator.

JUST IN: Bastion Trading calls for SOL treasury firm SkyAI to replace its board

The nearly 10% shareholder says every director received more withheld votes than support last week and is seeking an independent review of related-party deals, with possible legal action if SkyAI… pic.twitter.com/Gih0KiVjB1

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 30, 2026 The governance argument is tied to a September annual meeting. Bastion says every one of five incumbent director nominees drew more withheld than affirmative votes, and it points to the rejection of a proposed 2026 equity incentive plan. Under the company’s plurality election standard, withheld votes did not automatically vacate those board seats. Bastion treats the result as a rejection of the board’s stewardship. A legal change in control cannot be inferred from the withhold tally alone.

SkyAI’s offer has an immediate financial defense on its own terms. It has reported sufficient cash to cover the stated maximum consideration without borrowing, subject to fees and business needs. The release says there is no financing condition. It has removed the initially contemplated SOL price condition after exiting the token, so the offer no longer depends on a token price threshold. These changes address uncertainty that existed when the company still had to sell SOL to assemble cash.

The opposing case remains substantial. A holder who thinks the post tender business or its cash is worth more than $3 per security might decline. A holder who values a defined cash exit could tender. The exact answer depends on a person’s security class, tax position and the final offer terms; the company itself does not recommend either decision. The share market’s prevailing price can move as investors weigh the terms, and market price does not establish the eventual payout for securities not tendered.

What happens to owners who stay SkyAI says its common stock will remain listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market and registered under the Securities Exchange Act after the offer. That statement describes its intention, not a guarantee about the number of shares ultimately held by the public or future exchange compliance. If a large portion of shares is accepted, ownership concentration and the stock’s trading float can change. The release does not say the company plans to delist or go private.

The company describes its continuing project as a financial platform combining stablecoin rails on Solana with artificial intelligence. Selling the treasury does not by itself mean it has stopped planning to use Solana infrastructure. But a business built on payments or software has different economics from holding and staking millions of SOL. Revenue, customers, development costs and product status would become the relevant disclosures. The October 19 tender release does not quantify the platform’s customers or provide a stand alone forecast for its operating cash needs.

There is a cash constraint in the upper end of the offer. Starting from $223.8 million and subtracting the full $201.3 million maximum leaves approximately $22.5 million before tender fees, transaction expenses, working capital changes and other liabilities. This is arithmetic, not a post tender cash forecast. A less subscribed offer would use less cash. A company spending close to the maximum would have to run any continuing operations from the residual resources and future financing or revenue, none of which can be projected from the release alone.

The full tender documents say the offer is not conditional on outside financing. That is a statement about the funding source, not a statement that the remaining company cannot seek money for another purpose later. Nor is a buyback automatically accretive to each continuing holder. The result depends on price paid relative to the value of the assets and earnings remaining after the purchase, the count of securities retired, expenses and the claims represented by outstanding warrants.

A cash rich company trading below a plausible asset value can argue that a buyback returns capital to investors willing to exit while reducing the outstanding count. Bastion argues that the price and eligible securities treat holders unfairly. The filing settles neither valuation judgment. It supplies a fixed offer price, maximum size and conditions that allow the arguments to be checked against the completed participation and financial reporting later.

SkyAI is an outlier among SOL treasury peers Other listed Solana treasury companies still report token holdings and staking or validator activity. DeFi Development’s purchase program had taken its reported holdings to around 2.33 million SOL by late August. The figure belongs to that company’s own date and accounting, not SkyAI’s October balance. A peer’s continued accumulation cannot show that SkyAI should have held or sold at any particular market price; capital structures and shareholder demands differ.

JUST IN: DeFi Development Corp. adds 26,203 $SOL to its treasury

The purchase brings the company’s total Solana holdings to 2.56 million SOL and equivalents. pic.twitter.com/iIMgvefvlL

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 5, 2026 Another peer, Solana Company, reported a $30.3 million quarterly loss despite staking gains in its second quarter. That company’s reporting period and strategy are distinct, but the combination shows why staking revenue alone cannot establish a treasury vehicle’s profitability. Asset remeasurement, financing, expenses and the share count are all part of the financial result.

SkyAI’s complete exit does offer a useful comparison with a digital asset treasury model. A company can raise stock capital to buy tokens, earn staking revenue while holding them and later sell tokens to fund a share purchase. The price paid to acquire SOL, staking rewards earned and the sale prices each affect the net result, while shareholders experience the stock price and dilution separately. A gain in SOL units per share is not the same calculation as cash returned per security in a tender.

The company previously reported more than $12 million in staking revenue net of validator commissions from the launch of its strategy in August 2025 through June 30, 2026, according to its financial disclosures cited in the October treasury sale report. The metric ended months before the final October sales. Staking income is a real component of the strategy but cannot be subtracted directly from the difference between a historical cost basis and a current cash balance without an accounting reconciliation.

JUST IN: Forward Industries raises $25 million to expand its Solana treasury

The company will sell 3.125 million shares at $8 each to an institutional investor, using the net proceeds to acquire more $SOL and increase its SOL holdings per fully diluted share. pic.twitter.com/NNg4bqAExx

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 23, 2026 The offer’s 95% ceiling creates another difference from a simple company liquidation. It permits a substantial return of cash to accepting owners while leaving a public corporation and at least a residual class of securities. Owners who remain will hold claims on a smaller entity with a different asset mix. The company has not released a completed tender result, so the final count of securities and cash left cannot yet be stated.

A full tender would leave a much smaller share float The offer to purchase gives a share count that is more precise than the rounded mNAV denominator. SkyAI had 50,854,199 common shares issued and outstanding as of October 14. If the company bought its full 48,311,489 share allotment, the document estimates 2,542,710 common shares would remain immediately afterward. That calculation is 5% of the original common count, rounded to whole shares. It is a maximum scenario, not a forecast of how many owners will accept.

The reduction could have implications for trading even if the ticker stays on Nasdaq. Fewer freely traded shares may mean different daily volume and wider spreads, depending on how many owners tender and who keeps the remaining shares. The company makes completion conditional on determining that a purchase is not reasonably likely to cause delisting. That condition sits alongside its stated intention to remain listed. It also means the maximum 95% case should not be described as an unconditional commitment to purchase all shares tendered up to the cap.

Officers and directors may participate on the same basis as other holders, according to the offer document. Those who do not tender would see their proportional ownership rise if outstanding shares are retired. Bastion asked instead that directors, officers and certain affiliates refrain from tendering. The published offer includes no such general exclusion. The potential change in relative ownership is arithmetic, but whether a specific insider tenders will require later disclosure or a completed offer result.

The warrant counts matter to the residual entity as well. At October 14, the company listed 5,137,615 cash pre funded warrants, 10,463,001 cryptocurrency pre funded warrants and 4,163,467 strategic warrants. Full take up of each 95% cap would leave a residual 5% of each class, subject to rounding. The common share count by itself does not describe all possible future share claims. Warrants may carry exercise and beneficial ownership limits, and the legal rights of each class are set by its issuance agreements.

SkyAI says none of the three eligible warrant classes trades on a national securities exchange or other market. Its common shares closed at $2.55 on Nasdaq on October 14, according to the offer document. The $3 tender was 45 cents above that dated close, roughly 17.6% when calculated against $2.55. A historical premium does not tell a holder the stock’s price today or after the offer. The company specifically urges owners to obtain current quotations before deciding what to do.

The tender document provides a schedule for results. It expects to announce preliminary figures, including possible proration, on the next business day after the expiration. Final proration and payment would follow. An owner who tenders cannot assume immediate cash on October 29, because the terms require verification of the securities submitted and calculation of accepted amounts. The company will deposit the aggregate payment for accepted securities with its depositary, which transmits proceeds to holders.

The offer exposes two kinds of shareholder choice An owner can sell stock on the open market, tender it to the company or retain it. Those are not economically identical actions. Open market execution happens at the available bid or ask during trading, subject to brokerage costs. The tender offers a stated $3 price if the relevant conditions are satisfied and the shares are accepted. Retaining the stock leaves exposure to the operating company, its remaining cash and later financing or business decisions. The company and its board do not tell owners which path to take.

The tender’s federal tax discussion says a U.S. holder receiving cash generally has a taxable transaction. Treatment can depend on the owner’s circumstances and the relevant ownership rules; the offer directs holders to tax advisers. This is why the $3 gross payment should not be described as identical to after tax proceeds. A registered holder tendering directly to the depositary would not pay a brokerage commission for that submission, while a holder acting through a broker may face an intermediary charge under the published procedures.

There is a time dimension to the choice. The securities can be withdrawn before the deadline, and an extension can move that deadline. The offer’s conditions can be amended subject to applicable rules. A share sold into the market ordinarily settles under the ordinary brokerage process and does not depend on a minimum tender by a different class. A tendered share remains exposed to whether the offer closes and how the class’s 95% cap is applied.

The cash destination raises a separate capital allocation issue. Paying close to $201.3 million would hand funds to exiting security holders. Keeping more cash would leave a larger balance available to the continuing platform but provide fewer owners with a corporate cash exit. SkyAI’s filing supplies the offer’s maximum and current funding; it does not publish a forecast that values each alternative. Bastion favors a higher tender price and different participation rules. Shareholders may disagree for reasons that cannot be inferred from a single stock quote or SOL’s market price.

The company says its cash is sufficient and the offer has no borrowing requirement or financing contingency. Because it has already sold SOL, a fall in SOL’s price after October 16 would not directly reduce the reported token reserve; the reserve is zero. It could still affect investor views about the Solana based business SkyAI says it wants to build. Such an effect is a possible market reaction, not a direct arithmetic change in the cash balance disclosed for October 16.

The next filings can answer questions the release cannot An amended offer document could change the price, deadlines or conditions. SkyAI’s October 19 release fixes the terms currently announced, subject to the offer to purchase and any later amendments. Acceptance and proration figures will be needed after October 29 to tell how much cash actually leaves the company. The company’s subsequent financial statements can supply sale proceeds, realized gains or losses and an updated operating balance sheet.

Transaction transparency is a separate issue from the tender result. Bastion requested the exact sales dates, quantities, average realized prices and costs. The company has confirmed a completed sale and two cash snapshots, but those snapshots alone cannot reconstruct each SOL disposal. A comprehensive accounting may arrive through an amended filing or later periodic disclosure. In the meantime, attributing a particular sale price to the October exit would be guesswork.

The business description needs similar care. A proposed Solana based stablecoin platform is not the same asset as SOL held in treasury. A later customer contract, live product disclosure or revenue statement would establish what the new operating model produces. Today, the completed action supported by the October 19 exhibit is the sale of all SOL and the start of the cash offer. The document leaves $3 per security in place, includes strategic warrants and sets separate minimum tender conditions for the classes of securities it seeks.

What to watch October 29 deadline: Confirm any extension or amendment to the tender before the published New York expiry. Participation by class: The 50% minimum conditions apply separately to shares, combined pre funded warrants and strategic warrants. Final cash use: Accepted securities, proration and fees will determine how much of the $223.8 million balance remains. SOL sale details: Dates, quantities, prices and costs would allow an actual reconciliation of the treasury exit. Operating disclosures: Customer, revenue and expense data will show what SkyAI’s proposed Solana platform consists of after the treasury sale. FAQ Does SkyAI still own any SOL? Its October 19 SEC exhibit says it had completed the sale of all SOL as of October 16, 2026. The same release reported around $223.8 million cash at that date.

How much is the company offering to pay? SkyAI offers $3 for each accepted share or eligible warrant, subject to a $0.0001 exercise price deduction on warrants. Full subscription would cost roughly $201.3 million before related expenses.

What is the deadline for the SkyAI tender? The offer is scheduled to expire one minute after 11:59 p.m. New York City time on October 29, 2026, unless extended or terminated earlier. Broker held securities may need earlier instructions.

Are all shares guaranteed to be accepted? No. SkyAI seeks up to 95% of each eligible class. If more than that proportion is properly tendered in a class, the company plans to prorate acceptances within that class.

What does Bastion Trading want changed? Bastion has asked for a price of at least $3.50, detailed SOL sale disclosures, board changes and exclusion of strategic advisor warrants. Those are the shareholder’s demands, not announced changes to the offer.

Did SkyAI remove the SOL price condition? Yes. The October 19 release says the offer is not conditioned on SOL’s price because the company no longer holds the token. Other tender conditions remain.

Will SkyAI go private after the tender? The company says it intends to keep its common stock listed on Nasdaq and registered under U.S. securities law. The actual number of accepted shares and resulting public float have yet to be determined.

How much cash will be left after the offer? If SkyAI pays the stated $201.3 million maximum from its reported $223.8 million, the arithmetic difference is $22.5 million before expenses and other movements. The actual residual depends on participation and costs. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of October 20, 2026.

Solana Price Prediction Ahead of Tomorrow’s Alpenglow Launch: Is $90 or $110 Next?

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.