Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Switchboard’s September 25 support deadline has turned a six-day migration warning into a test of Solana’s price feeds. Current public documentation shows where its data remains part of an application’s design, but those pages cannot prove that a live market is still using the feed. Jito and marginfi provide two sharply different views of the exposure.

Summary

Switchboard said technical support would end on September 25, 2026, after its September 19 wind-down announcement. Jito’s Tip Router documentation still names Switchboard as a pricing source for vault weights, although the overview is 9 months old. Marginfi’s September upgrade describes 9 new oracle setups that do not depend on Switchboard. A stale price feed can affect collateral checks, while Jito documents a separate fallback for reward-weight pricing. No live protocol-wide count of unmigrated Switchboard feeds was verified for the September 25 deadline. Switchboard has reached its stated September 25 end of technical support, leaving Solana applications to verify the price sources configured in their live programs.

The oracle project’s September 19 statement, as reproduced in coverage of the announcement, said its core development contributor Switchboard Technology Labs would wind down and all implementations were deprecated immediately. The team urged integrators to migrate to other providers, naming Pyth and RedStone. September 25 was described as the last day for existing support. A company ending support is a real operational milestone. It does not, by itself, prove that every onchain feed stopped updating at midnight or that every application once associated with Switchboard remained dependent on it.

Switchboard’s own documentation has named Kamino, Jito, marginfi and Drift as users. Those are historical integration claims from a provider that was selling an oracle service, not a real-time inventory of active feeds on September 25. Checking each project’s current documentation reveals a more complicated picture. Jito’s Tip Router pages still describe Switchboard in their pricing flow; marginfi’s September technical upgrade adds paths designed to avoid that dependency. One document can be stale while another anticipates a migration. Neither substitutes for an inspection of live account configuration.

The earlier Switchboard funding round was $7.5 million in May 2024. The amount is useful background on the venture’s history, but it gives no measure of today’s protocol exposure. The relevant count is the number and value of live markets whose risk calculations still take data from a feed that cannot be reliably updated, and that count cannot be inferred from a customer logo.

A listed integration is not an active feed Switchboard’s public introduction describes on-demand feeds: applications create or call the data they need, and a price is made available through Solana accounts. Documentation can identify where a protocol knows how to read a Switchboard feed. It may not identify which option a particular market currently selects. A software development kit may support an oracle type long after the last bank switches away from it. Conversely, a website may change while a live reserve retains its older oracle account.

Three levels of evidence need to be kept apart. First is a marketing or integration page, which shows a relationship existed. Second is a program’s supported configuration, visible in technical documentation or code. Third is the live configuration and recent update history of the actual market. Only the third can support a claim that a named market still relied on Switchboard at a given time. Even then, a backup source may be configured, so the impact of a stopped primary feed must be checked against the relevant fallback and freshness rule.

Consider marginfi’s protocol documentation. Its oracle table retains SwitchboardPull and venue variants among available setups. It says a caller must crank a Switchboard pull feed just before use. The same table lists Pyth push feeds and Scope accounts as other setups. A reader could mistake the continued Switchboard row for proof that every marginfi bank still uses it. The table describes supported types, not a complete list of which bank uses which feed today.

BREAKING: Pyth price feeds now live in Etherfi’s Earn product on Optimism, powering the largest crypto neobank with over $5.7B TVL pic.twitter.com/Yvtoc97hvM

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) April 17, 2026 Marginfi’s separate Program 0.1.11 note is more current and more specific. It instructed developers to upgrade the SDK to at least version 2.8.0 before September 4, saying banks would begin moving to new oracle setups from that date. The release added nine variants that do not depend on Switchboard, including Kamino Scope feeds and exchange-rate based pricing for certain liquid staking and principal tokens. The note does not say every bank had migrated by September 25. It does show that a project publicly documented a route away from the threatened dependency before the shutdown announcement.

The migration carries a surprising second failure mode. Marginfi says older SDKs cannot decode a bank configured with one of the new oracle enum values. A single bank with an unsupported value can prevent Project0Client.initialize and bank reads, not merely an action involving that bank. In other words, changing an oracle can fix one infrastructure dependency while breaking an integrator that has not updated its software. Marginfi’s document tells integrators how to avoid the SDK problem; it is not evidence that any particular user suffered it.

Project 0 has described unified margin across Solana venues, including Kamino and Drift. Cross-protocol interfaces create another layer at which an oracle migration must be read correctly. The note about older SDK versions is concrete evidence of an integration hazard, without proving a failure in Project 0 or any other named app. A responsible audit would check software versions and live lending-bank configurations before claiming an outage.

Jito’s Tip Router still documents Switchboard Jito Foundation’s Tip Router overview says Switchboard determines the relative weight of assets such as JitoSOL and JTO held in vaults linked to the Tip Router. The overview identifies an onchain Tip Router program, a node-operator client and a permissionless cranker. Its pricing documentation names Switchboard as the current oracle feed and describes backup weights when feeds are unavailable.

The documents place Switchboard in a specific job: pricing vault assets for weight calculations in a tip distribution and restaking system. They do not say that an unavailable Switchboard feed would automatically liquidate a Solana lending position. Jito’s pricing page describes a fallback mechanism, which weakens the simplistic claim that a support sunset necessarily makes all Tip Router operations stop. The exact fallback values, activation conditions and current live oracle accounts still need a current program-state check.

The Tip Router overview showed a last-updated marker of nine months ago when checked on September 25. That age changes how it can be used. It establishes a documented design and identifies where to ask a technical question. It cannot establish that the present program has the same feed configuration. Jito may have updated onchain accounts without revising the page, or it may still use Switchboard with a fallback. Without a recent transaction inspection or a current statement from Jito, a named live dependency remains unverified.

Jito’s public GitHub release notes for Tip Router refer to retrying Switchboard oracle gateways in keeper operations. A codebase containing such logic likewise demonstrates technical integration, not necessarily a dependency of every vault at the time of publication. Code can preserve a compatibility path for months. The live question is whether recent price update transactions target a Switchboard account used by a vault still carrying value, and whether that account advances after the support deadline.

The distinction is often lost when all oracle users are placed in a single list. Jito’s described calculation affects relative asset weights in a distribution system. A lending market’s described calculation determines collateral value and borrower health. Both consume price data, but their failure paths differ. An audit that counts logos would assign the same severity to fundamentally different uses.

Kamino’s Scope is an aggregator, not a provider label Kamino Finance’s public Scope repository describes an onchain aggregator that copies values from multiple oracle accounts into one price feed and validates updates under preset rules. Its README says a feed supports up to 512 prices and that the association between an index and a token pair is not wholly stored onchain. A downstream program may point to Scope while Scope itself relies on other feeds for the selected asset. Seeing Scope in a bank configuration is thus a starting point for tracing the actual data source, not the end.

The September marginfi note lists Scope as an option that does not depend on Switchboard for the new setup it describes. That does not imply every deployment of Scope on every date excludes every Switchboard source. An aggregator can change its underlying inputs. A complete dependency check needs both the consumer’s selected Scope account and the source mapping used to populate its entry. Kamino’s repository supplies the architecture, not a timestamped inventory of current mainnet sources for every application.

Kamino has continued bringing institutions into its lending ecosystem. Galaxy opened two stablecoin vaults on the platform in September. The existence of new vaults shows why naming a whole protocol as exposed without checking its individual assets would be unsound. A USDC vault, a liquid staking token reserve and a tokenized equity market can use different oracle paths. We have not verified that Galaxy’s vaults use Switchboard, so they are not included in a count of affected positions.

Similarly, the older list of Kamino, Jito, marginfi and Drift in Switchboard’s introductory material does not tell us the distribution of exposure among them. A project may use an oracle only for one market, use it as a fallback, or retain code after switching live feeds. The only defensible unit of analysis is a specific market or vault and its configured feed at a specified time. Without that unit, claims about funds at risk are marketing arithmetic run backward.

A stale feed has more than one possible effect The technical consequence of a feed falling behind depends on the consuming protocol. A lending program generally needs a price to determine collateral value and borrowing capacity. If it rejects an old value, an action may fail or a market may pause under its rules. If it accepts stale data, a borrower might transact against a price that no longer matches the market. A fallback source may keep the market operating but introduce a new update rhythm or confidence rule. The protocol’s documentation and onchain configuration decide which path applies.

Marginfi explicitly says Switchboard pull feeds need to be cranked before use. An integrator must therefore supply a fresh update as part of its transaction path. Pyth push feeds, by contrast, are described as being kept fresh through Pyth’s infrastructure. Scope uses an aggregated account value selected by a configured entry index. Moving between these types changes the accounts a transaction needs and the code that checks them. The September SDK warning is one visible example of those changes reaching application software.

For Jito Tip Router, the public docs describe backup weights for unavailable feeds. Whether those backups preserve accurate reward allocation through a sustained outage is a question for live configuration and Jito’s operators, not something a documentation sentence resolves. If a feed keeps updating through independent node operators after the company stops support, no fallback may be triggered immediately. If updates cease but the backup is active, operations may continue with a different pricing method. These are conditional paths, not a prediction of the system’s present state.

An unrelated oracle incident led to liquidations on Vesu earlier in September. It illustrates that incorrect pricing can have economic effects, but it is not evidence of an incident at Switchboard, Jito or marginfi. A shutdown notice should not be turned into a liquidation claim by analogy. The sign of an actual event would be stale account timestamps, failed transactions, a protocol pause or identified losses, none of which has been shown here for the September 25 deadline.

Solana’s move to 250 millisecond slots changed the pace at which blocks are produced, but it did not guarantee that an external price source updates. Faster slots can carry a new price sooner when one exists. They cannot manufacture a price when the node supplying it stops. A protocol’s freshness test may be measured by slot, time or another rule, so a change in the network clock may alter how developers interpret old feed configurations.

Who bears the migration work? The oracle operator publishes or coordinates data, but the consuming protocol chooses the account its program reads and the limits it places on that price. A lending protocol can require governance or an administrator to change oracle addresses for its markets. Its front end and third-party integrators then have to construct transactions with the right additional accounts. Users may only notice a rejected borrow or a paused market, long after the operator and protocol have made their technical decisions.

An operator ending support does not necessarily have the power to rewrite a customer’s program configuration. The Switchboard notice urged users to migrate because integration owners must act. Projects should be assessed by the addresses and account updates they control. If an application already moved to Pyth before September 19, the later support deadline has no direct effect on that market. If it still selects a Switchboard feed and has no working backup, the feed’s behavior after September 25 is the concrete issue.

BREAKING: Pyth becomes an external distributor of Nasdaq Basic

The partnership brings Nasdaq’s real-time U.S. equity quotes and trade data to the Pyth Data Marketplace, expanding access to institutional-grade market information across blockchain applications. pic.twitter.com/7sIrpWL1pI

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 22, 2026 The strongest opposing reading of the shutdown alarm follows from marginfi’s own September note and Jito’s documented backup. Applications can design redundancy or move ahead of a vendor exit; the code and documents show mechanisms for doing so. Switchboard’s on-demand model can leave some feed infrastructure running independently even if the core contributor has stopped support. The notice did not publish a verified schedule at which every account would halt, and we found no primary evidence establishing such a universal cutoff.

There is a different kind of continuity question for a protocol that made its own fallback. A backup price can prevent a total stop while pricing an asset less frequently or with a different source set. For a reward distribution process, a temporary backup weight may keep epoch accounting moving, although the allocation may then rely on the backup’s assumptions. For a lending market, the fallback could change the price used in a health check. These are not claims about current Jito or marginfi settings. They show what a maintainer must disclose before users can judge whether a migration is complete in operational terms, not merely whether transactions still execute.

A provider wind-down can have delayed effects as well. Code written to request on-demand prices may succeed while an independent gateway answers, then fail when that gateway is retired or its operators stop updating a specific asset. An observer needs several post-deadline timestamps, not a single successful transaction, to infer continued service. The same discipline applies to a failed transaction: one user’s error may arise from a stale SDK or insufficient account input instead of an unavailable oracle. Marginfi’s migration document supplies an explicit example of a software decoding failure that could otherwise be mislabeled as an oracle outage.

JUST IN: Hyperliquid SK Hynix perpetual drops 17.9% on oracle anomaly

Forced liquidations followed an erroneous external market print relayed by the pricing oracle pic.twitter.com/X2YYeLRFiJ

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 29, 2026 There is a limit to that reassurance. A fallback described nine months earlier needs validation against current state, and a migration option described in September is not proof every bank took it. The two documents supply credible reasons not to assume catastrophe, while leaving a measurable gap. The fair conclusion is narrower than both the promotional and alarmist versions: public documents identify candidate dependencies and escape routes; a current market-by-market configuration audit is needed to establish any remaining exposure.

The live inventory is still the missing document The original reporting here compares Switchboard’s list of four prominent integrators with current primary documents from Jito, marginfi and Kamino. It yields two verified documentary findings. Jito’s older Tip Router documentation names Switchboard for vault pricing and a fallback for unavailable feeds. Marginfi’s September 0.1.11 note describes nine new setups independent of Switchboard and warns of a separate SDK break if integrators do not upgrade. Kamino’s Scope repository explains why an aggregator label alone cannot identify every upstream data source.

The work does not produce a count of live unmigrated feeds, user funds exposed or an outage at any named protocol. The available public pages do not contain a synchronized September 25 snapshot of all oracle accounts, latest successful updates, fallback settings and amounts supported by each market. Claiming a specific dollar total from protocol TVL would be indefensible, because the whole protocol’s assets do not necessarily share the same oracle. The precise headline question remains open at the live-account level.

A proper count would use the market as the row, not the protocol. For each active lending bank, derivative market or reward vault, the auditor would record its program address, selected oracle type, oracle account, backup source if any, latest successful price update, maximum permitted age and the value of positions actually dependent on that particular price. Duplicate markets that share one oracle account should not be counted as distinct feeds; one market using two independent oracles should not be counted as wholly dependent on either without reading its fallback logic. The timestamp of the market configuration matters because an administrator could change a feed after the observation.

This method explains why even a true statement such as a protocol supported 550 feeds in the past is insufficient for the present question. A feed can exist without an active borrower, can have a price update without a consuming market, or can be referenced only in dormant code. A count of feed accounts measures infrastructure. A count of configured markets measures dependency. A count of positions and collateral actually touching those markets measures economic exposure. None is interchangeable with total assets deposited in all products run by a project.

There is a further verification step when a source is an aggregator. The consumer may identify a Scope account and entry index, while the Scope mapping points onward to one or more providers. An update in the Scope account after September 25 proves an aggregator produced a value, but it does not by itself prove Switchboard continued to supply the underlying price. The investigator needs the selected entry and source configuration for that update. Kamino’s repository notes that token-pair labels are not entirely stored onchain, so external configuration or maintainer documentation may be needed to map an index to its asset. Where that mapping is unavailable, the result should be recorded as unknown, not silently attributed to Pyth or Switchboard.

What to watch Market oracle addresses: Compare each active bank or vault’s configured feed with the documented Switchboard accounts. Price update timestamps: Check whether an identified feed continues publishing fresh values after September 25. Fallback configuration: Look for the source and freshness limit used if a primary feed falls behind. Recent program transactions: Check whether borrowing, settlement or tip distribution still completes for the affected market. Dated maintainer updates: Look for a named migration, market pause or remaining dependency, supported by an account or program address. Record the observation time for each check; a screenshot without a block or timestamp can quickly become stale.

Marginfi’s upgrade note states that a bank using a new oracle enum value can make an older SDK fail to initialize its client, even if a user does not interact with that particular bank. The instruction to use SDK version 2.8.0 or later was published ahead of September 4’s migration start, three weeks before Switchboard’s support deadline.

FAQ When did Switchboard say support would end? The shutdown announcement was made on September 19, 2026, and identified September 25 as the end of existing technical support. The notice deprecated implementations immediately.

Did all Switchboard oracle feeds stop on September 25? The support deadline alone does not establish that every onchain account stopped updating. Current transaction and feed timestamps are needed to make that claim.

Does Jito still use Switchboard? Jito’s Tip Router documentation still names Switchboard in vault pricing, but its overview is marked as last updated nine months earlier. The pages do not prove the live September 25 configuration.

Did marginfi migrate off Switchboard? Marginfi’s September upgrade documents nine new oracle setups that do not depend on Switchboard and says banks began moving from September 4. It does not state that every bank completed a migration.

Why can an oracle migration break an SDK? Marginfi says older SDKs do not recognize the enum values used by its nine new setups. A bank configured with one can make an old client’s initialization fail; version 2.8.0 or later supports the variants.

Is Kamino Scope independent of every external oracle? Scope aggregates values from other oracle accounts. Its presence in a consumer’s configuration does not identify every upstream source without examining the specific entry mapping.

How can users check whether a market is affected? The market’s configured oracle account, latest update and fallback settings provide a stronger answer than a historical provider list. Protocol announcements can confirm whether a specific market has migrated.

Have losses been verified from this shutdown? No losses at a named protocol were verified for this feature. An earlier incident at another protocol cannot prove one occurred here. 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 September 25, 2026.

Bitget has confirmed that attackers stole $387.5 million from its exchange wallets on September 24. Withdrawals still remain suspended, while the company says its protection fund covers the loss.

Mandiant and SlowMist are investigating. CEO Gracy Chen suspects North Korean involvement, although the initial entry point remains undisclosed.

So, how did the hack potentially take place? BeInCrypto has structured a timeline based on publicly available info. 

September 24, 18:31 UTC: Bitget Detects Unauthorized TransfersBitget says its security systems detected the transfers at 18:31 UTC and activated emergency procedures within minutes.

The breach affected parts of its hot and warm wallets, which support exchange operations. Its offline cold wallets remained secure, according to the company. The detection time does not establish when attackers first gained access.

19:57–21:06 UTC: Unusual Trades Raise the AlarmAt 19:57, analyst DCF GOD flagged a fresh wallet spending $19.67 million in USDT0 to buy 7,111 ETH in six minutes. It reportedly paid up to 5% above market prices.

The behaviour suggested someone prioritized moving funds quickly. Their motive was still unclear.

By 21:06, Bubblemaps reported roughly $180 million moving from Bitget wallets to a common receiving address, then splitting into several wallets.

21:30 UTC: Chen Confirms the BreachChen’s security notice put the initial loss at $351.6 million and confirmed that withdrawals were paused.

The notice came almost three hours after Bitget’s stated detection time. That gap leaves questions about its response, but does not prove funds kept leaving throughout that period.

September 25, 00:43 UTC: The Suspected Method EmergesChen said attackers compromised a critical backend system, meaning software that manages wallet operations behind the scenes.

They supplied false transaction data and triggered Bitget’s authorization process. In simple terms, its own system approved fraudulent transfers.

Chen said private-key theft had been ruled out. How attackers entered the backend, and which checks failed, still requires a detailed public explanation.

14:03 UTC: The Loss Reaches $387.5 MillionBitget revised its estimate after including affected Zcash and TRON assets. It said the increase reflected a fuller accounting of the original theft.

The company says the vulnerability has been fixed. It promised a withdrawal-plan announcement by September 26 at 04:00 UTC, without committing to reopening withdrawals then.

Why Investigators Suspect North Korean InvolvementChen cited IP behaviour and blockchain activity consistent with North Korean groups. Several features resemble the February 2025 Bybit theft, which the FBI attributed to North Korea.

Manipulated approvals: Bitget describes false instructions reaching its authorization system. At Bybit, a compromised interface tricked signers into approving a malicious transaction. The mechanisms differ, but both exploited the approval process.
Rapid asset conversion: Bitget-linked funds quickly bought ETH. The FBI documented rapid conversion of Bybit’s stolen assets into other cryptocurrencies.
Splitting funds across wallets: Bubblemaps identified several receiving wallets. Bybit’s proceeds spread across thousands of addresses, according to the FBI.
Using THORChain: MistTrack reported Bitget proceeds entering the protocol and identified its earlier use to move stolen Bybit funds.
These parallels support further investigation. They do not independently identify Bitget’s attackers.

8 hours ago

Yuga Labs’ Vice President of Blockchain, Quit, released a statement saying that at 9 a.m. ET today, attackers exploited a vulnerability in Payment Processor V2 to steal 10 Meebits, 50 Otherdeeds, 10 WoW, and 235 Desperate Apewives. The incident was reported to the team more than 12 hours later, and a subsequent investigation revealed that a large number of NFTs faced similar risks. Quit noted that after contacting the LimitBreak team, the latter swiftly suspended the similarly affected Payment Processor V3. However, V2 could not be paused, and V3 on ApeChain was also temporarily un-suspendable. As a result, the team launched a white hat operation, transferring and securing a total of 23,155 NFTs valued at over $5.7 million. The team later discovered the same vulnerability could also be abused to steal WETH, with approximately 660 WETH at risk that could not be recovered in time. All rescued NFTs have now been moved to secure addresses; holders will be able to claim their assets after revoking authorizations for the vulnerable contract.

Scan the QR code

Download APP

Canary Capital amended its staked Injective ETF filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The issuer has revealed significant changes to its prospectus to provide investors with regulated exposure to Injective and staking rewards. INJ price rebounded 5% to hit $8.6 in the last 24 hours.

Canary Capital Updates Staked Injective ETF with the US SEC Canary Capital submitted Amendment No. 3 to its Form S-1 for the Canary Staked Injective ETF, according to a latest filing with the US SEC. If approved, it will offer regulated exposure to spot INJ price and additional Injective earnings via its staking program.

The issuer seeks to list the spot exchange-traded fund on Cboe BZX under the ticker INJS. Canary says it expects to stake at least 90% INJ, as compared to all in previous filings.

Canary Capital Amends its Staked Injective ETF. Source: US SEC Canary Capital has revealed amendments to agreements, including price index providers, custodians, and transfer and marketing agents. The exchange-traded fund will track Injective price performance as measured by the CoinDesk Injective Benchmark Rate 60m NY Rate index.

U.S. Bank NA is the Canary Staked Injective ETF’s cash custodian. BitGo Bank & Trust is named as custodian for the trust and will hold all of the Trust’s INJ on the Trust’s behalf. U.S. Bancorp Fund Services will serve as transfer agent and administrator for the trust.

The issuer will sell or redeem staked INJ ETF in blocks of 10,000 shares. Other details disclosed in the filings include Paralel Distributors LLC as marketing agent.

The key details of the management fee and staking fee for Canary Staked INJ ETF were not disclosed yet. These details could appear in the next S-1 filings.

INJ Price Nears Breakout Injective price jumped more than 6% in the past 24 hours amid Injective CypherOS on-chain privacy layer buzz. This follows the successful Meridian mainnet upgrade that went live on Thursday. The upgrade added support for regulated tokenized assets and expanded INJ’s role on the network.

The price currently trades at $8.12, with an intraday low and high of $7.81 and $8.66, respectively. Trading volume has slightly decreased by 6% over the last 24 hours, indicating a decline in interest among traders.

In the daily timeframe, the price is above the 50-MA and 200-MA at the time of writing. The price is moving in convergence with a rise in the Relative Strength Index (RSI) to 72.30, signaling a potential for a pullback from the overbought zone.

Injective Price in 1-Day Timeframe. Source: TradingView Analysts recommended that investors consider an entry near $8 for a rally toward the next resistance at $10.4 amid AI and Canary Staked Injective ETF developments. Traders must also keep an eye on rising trading volumes to confirm upside momentum.

CoinGlass data showed buying in the derivatives market in the last few hours. At the time of writing, the total Injective futures open interest jumped almost 5% in the past hour and almost 7% over the last 4 hours. The 24-hour INJ futures open interest is up nearly 11.30%. Notably, it increased more than 6% on Binance, 8% on Bybit, and 16% on OKX.

Also Read: Best AI Crypto Coins to Invest In Right Now For 2026

Hyperliquid Strategies has bought another 494,200 HYPE worth $45.8 million as the company continues to build its treasury while large holders move millions of dollars worth of the token toward potential sale.

Summary

Hyperliquid Strategies bought another 494,200 HYPE worth $45.8 million, taking its purchases over the past month to $476 million. Five large addresses began unstaking nearly $90.4 million in HYPE, while Multicoin Capital moved another $12.15 million to Coinbase Prime. HYPE has fallen roughly 6.6% from its $97.99 all time high as large holder movements put potential supply in focus. Hyperliquid buybacks remain a source of demand, with 97% of protocol trading fees directed toward continuous HYPE purchases. Lookonchain reported on Sept. 25 that wallet 0x6436, which it linked to Hyperliquid Strategies, made the latest purchases over a 16 hour period. The address has now accumulated 5.51 million HYPE worth roughly $476 million over the past month.

Purchases during the period averaged 183,574 HYPE, or $15.86 million, per day. Hyperliquid Strategies currently holds around 35.1 million HYPE valued at approximately $3.2 billion.

The latest purchases come less than a month after the Nasdaq listed company reported a much smaller treasury. As crypto.news previously reported, Hyperliquid Strategies held approximately 29.3 million HYPE worth $1.9 billion as of June 30 after raising $647 million in equity capital.

At the time, the company said it had spent $773.4 million buying approximately 16.5 million HYPE since December. Its latest holdings indicate that the treasury has continued to grow since the end of its fiscal year.

Hyperliquid Strategies keeps buying HYPE The latest accumulation has taken place near some of the highest prices HYPE has recorded since its launch.

Separate monitoring from onchain analyst EmberCN showed that Hyperliquid Strategies acquired 1.444 million HYPE worth $135 million over the week ending Sept. 24. The tokens were purchased at an average price of approximately $93.70.

HYPE reached a record $97.99 on Sept. 23 before pulling back. The token traded near $91.50 at the time of writing on Sept. 25, leaving it roughly 6.6% below its record.

Trading activity remained high during the pullback. CoinGecko data showed around $1.24 billion in HYPE trading volume on Sept. 25, while its market capitalization stood near $20.5 billion.

The rally into the record followed a series of developments around Hyperliquid. HYPE reached a previous record of $92.56 on Sept. 18 after the platform introduced manual borrowing of USDC and USDT against HYPE and Bitcoin collateral.

Users can supply HYPE or Bitcoin and borrow stablecoins through the system. HYPE carries a 65% loan to value ratio, while Bitcoin has a 50% ratio.

Large HYPE holders have moved tokens toward potential sale Buying from Hyperliquid Strategies has arrived alongside a series of transactions from other large HYPE holders that have put potential supply in focus.

Multicoin Capital transferred another 130,331 HYPE worth $12.15 million to Coinbase Prime on Sept. 24 after a one week pause, according to Lookonchain.

The latest transaction brought Multicoin’s transfers to Coinbase Prime since July 28 to approximately 4.23 million HYPE worth $285 million.

A transfer to Coinbase Prime does not confirm that the assets were sold. The institutional platform provides custody and execution services, meaning the available onchain data does not show what happened to the tokens after they arrived.

The transfers have nevertheless occurred as HYPE has traded close to record levels. Multicoin’s latest deposit came one day after the token reached $97.99, with HYPE subsequently falling below $92 during trading on Sept. 25.

Multicoin had substantial exposure to HYPE earlier this year. Three wallets associated with the investment firm had staked approximately 1.96 million HYPE on HyperCore in May, while their combined holdings stood near 2.83 million tokens at the time.

Similar movements involving other large holders have appeared before. In July, a whale moved previously unstaked HYPE to FalconX and Coinbase Prime as the token fell below $55.

Nearly $90 million in HYPE is being unstaked Another batch of HYPE could become available to move at the start of October.

Five large addresses began unstaking a combined 983,600 HYPE worth approximately $90.44 million on Sept. 24, according to TradingBeats data cited by Lookonchain.

The largest address started unstaking 391,800 HYPE worth nearly $36 million. Another removed 209,600 HYPE worth $19.24 million from staking, while three other addresses initiated withdrawals totaling roughly 382,200 HYPE.

None of the transactions means the tokens have been sold.

Hyperliquid requires users to wait seven days after initiating the native unstaking process before HYPE can move from staking balances into spot balances. The tokens involved in the latest transactions therefore cannot currently be sold, transferred or restaked and are expected to become available around Oct. 1.

A similar situation developed in late August when a wallet attributed to HyperLabs requested the unstaking of approximately 433,000 HYPE worth $36.14 million. Previous HyperLabs withdrawals had been routed through Flowdesk, though the transaction itself did not establish whether the tokens would eventually be sold.

Large unlocks have not consistently resulted in equivalent exchange inflows either. Hyperliquid released approximately 9.92 million HYPE worth around $820 million on Sept. 6, but historical data from an earlier unlock showed that only about 1.75% of released tokens reached exchanges during the following 30 days.

Why is HYPE price pulling back from its all time high? HYPE has lost ground since reaching an all time high of $97.99 earlier this week, with the token trading near $91.50 on Sept. 25. The move has left HYPE roughly 6.6% below its record level after sellers repeatedly emerged near $98.

Historical market data showed HYPE closing around $97.19 on Sept. 22 before falling to $93.98 on Sept. 23 and $92.08 on Sept. 24. The token continued to trade lower on Sept. 25 as several large holders moved or prepared to unlock substantial amounts of HYPE.

Multicoin Capital transferred 130,331 HYPE worth $12.15 million to Coinbase Prime on Sept. 24, while five other addresses began unstaking a combined 983,600 HYPE worth approximately $90.44 million. The unstaking process takes seven days, meaning those tokens are expected to become transferable around Oct. 1.

Neither development confirms that the HYPE will be sold. Coinbase Prime provides custody and execution services, while unstaking only makes tokens available for transfer once the waiting period ends. Still, the transactions have placed nearly $103 million worth of HYPE in positions where the tokens could potentially become available for sale.

Buying has continued on the other side of the market. Hyperliquid Strategies accumulated another 494,200 HYPE worth $45.8 million over 16 hours and has purchased 5.51 million tokens worth $476 million during the past month, according to Lookonchain.

Can HYPE buybacks offset potential selling pressure? Protocol purchases provide another source of HYPE demand while large holders move or unstake tokens. Hyperliquid directs 97% of protocol trading fees toward continuous HYPE purchases through its Assistance Fund.

By May, the fund had spent more than $1.3 billion acquiring HYPE and held roughly 28.5 million tokens. The mechanism remained active in September, with OnchainLens data cited by Lookonchain showing that 32,770 HYPE worth approximately $2.65 million was bought and burned during a 24 hour period ending Sept. 12 at an average price of $81.01.

Cumulative burns had reached roughly 48.57 million HYPE at the time, equivalent to around 4.86% of the token’s maximum supply.

Bitcoin ETF inflows slow to $191M as six-day streak reaches $2.8BUS spot Bitcoin ETFs drew $191 million Thursday as daily inflows slowed for a third day, lifting year-to-date net flows to $787 million.

US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) drew about $191 million in net inflows on Thursday, pushing their six-session total past $2.8 billion.

After hitting a 2026 high of $999 million on Monday, daily inflows fell for three consecutive sessions while Bitcoin retreated from above $87,000. Thursday’s total was down 81% from Monday, according to SoSoValue data.

The latest inflow streak lifted the funds’ year-to-date total to roughly $787 million, reversing a 2026 deficit of about $5.5 billion at the end of June. September alone has attracted $2.56 billion so far, following $3.52 billion in August.

Daily flows in US spot Bitcoin ETFs. Source: SoSoValueBlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), the largest US spot Bitcoin ETF by assets, accounted for about $163 million of Thursday’s inflows, according to Farside Investors data. IBIT has attracted roughly $1.35 billion during the six-session streak, or nearly half of the funds’ combined inflows.

At the time of publication, Bitcoin traded at $83,807, down 0.3% over the past 24 hours but still up about 8% over the past seven days, according to CoinGecko.

This article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph's Editorial Policy and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice or recommendations. All investments and trades carry risk; readers are encouraged to conduct independent research.

As the price of Bitcoin (BTC) continues to rise, the remarkable fund movements on Binance have become the focus of investors. According to CryptoQuant analyst Darkforth, Binance, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, recorded its highest single-day net Bitcoin outflow since 2023.

According to an analysis shared by Darkforth, Bitcoin has gained approximately 45% in value since its July levels. The fact that BTC has surpassed key technical levels and closed above $82,000 for several consecutive days is cited as one of the factors distinguishing the current upward movement from previous recoveries.

The analyst noted that despite the price increase, the accumulation trend in Bitcoin continues. This trend is clearly visible in BTC movements on cryptocurrency exchanges.

According to data, Binance hosts approximately 30% of the total amount of Bitcoin held on centralized exchanges accessible to investors. Over the past week, Binance has seen an average daily net outflow of around 2,000 BTC, while recently a single day saw a net outflow exceeding 13,800 BTC. This is reportedly the highest daily net BTC outflow seen since 2023.

Binance’s Bitcoin reserves also decreased from approximately 705,000 BTC to 685,000 BTC in the last four days. This means that about 20,000 BTC has been withdrawn from the exchange’s reserves.

According to Darkforth, the continuous withdrawal of Bitcoin from exchanges may indicate that some investors prefer to hold onto their assets long-term rather than sell them. The decrease in the amount of Bitcoin available for sale on exchanges is seen as a development that could limit potential selling pressure from a market perspective.

The analyst also noted that the recent sudden and large-scale outflows could indicate a different type of investor behavior. According to this, some investors who believe Bitcoin will continue to fall, as it did in past bear markets, may be re-entering the market as the price rises, driven by fear of missing out (FOMO).

*This is not investment advice.

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

Ripple has introduced the XRPL AI Starter Kit, aiming to facilitate payments between autonomous software agents using x402 payment protocols. This solution allows transactions to be conducted in either XRP, Ripple’s digital asset, or RLUSD, its new stablecoin pegged to the US dollar. The move addresses growing demand for seamless, automated financial interactions as machine-to-machine payments evolve into practical tools beyond initial trials.

Stablecoin RLUSD offers fixed-price certainty for AI agentsAI agents are increasingly making frequent, small purchases, such as spending $0.10 per inference thousands of times each day. For these microtransactions, stable pricing is essential to both buyers and sellers. RLUSD, designed to maintain a one-to-one peg with the US dollar and backed by cash reserves, offers the predictability needed for invoicing, subscriptions, and API payments.

Ripple maintains that RLUSD’s backing by cash and equivalents ensures price stability, allowing AI agents and developers to transact without worrying about value fluctuations typically associated with cryptocurrencies like XRP.

The XRPL documentation demonstrates this distinction, highlighting XRP as the simplest native on-chain payment method, while RLUSD is used for transactions requiring a dollar-denominated value. Both assets settle over XRPL, but serve different transactional needs.

Recent documentation distinguishes XRP payments as the straightforward native method on XRPL, whereas RLUSD is labeled for dollar-based transactions. Both benefit from deterministic settlement on the same network.

Growth in machine-to-machine commerce through AI payments could drive increased XRPL activity. Ripple emphasizes that RLUSD enables these transactions without exposing users to the risk of XRP price volatility.

XRP’s role as XRPL’s native asset remains significantWhile RLUSD meets stable-value needs, XRP’s utility within XRPL is not diminished. XRP is the protocol’s native asset, streamlining direct value transfers across the ledger. RLUSD, in contrast, is an issued token representing a stable digital dollar.

One key feature of XRPL is its support for cross-currency transactions. This allows an agent to send value in XRP, with the recipient receiving RLUSD—or vice versa—utilizing the network’s built-in exchange functions.

This flexibility enables two autonomous agents to transact without having to agree on holding the same asset. For example, a service provider preferring RLUSD can still receive payments from clients holding only XRP. XRPL documentation highlights direct XRP payments as the quickest and most straightforward settlement path for such transactions.

The infrastructure supporting machine payments is expanding. The community-led XRPL AI Hub has indexed more than 7.25 million agent-payment transactions, and records average daily activity of roughly 181,000 payments. These figures reflect organic engagement with the emerging agent-payment ecosystem and signal increasing relevance for both assets in automated commerce.

Mini dictionary: XRPL AI Hub, a community-driven platform tracking and analyzing autonomous agent payments and activity on the XRP Ledger (XRPL), offers real-time insights into trends in automated digital transactions.

AssetTypeMain Use CaseSettlement NetworkValue PegXRPNative digital assetDirect on-chain payments, value transferXRPLMarket-drivenRLUSDStablecoin (issued)Stable, dollar-denominated paymentsXRPLPegged to $1

Key Highlights ETH maintains position around $2,680 with a 0.40% gain in the last 24 hours Major holders controlling 10K-100K ETH accumulated 260K tokens starting Saturday, reversing prior week’s selling trend Spot Ethereum ETFs in the US recorded their fourth consecutive session of positive net flows totaling $104.6 million BlackRock’s ETHA product dominated with $50.8 million in inflows on September 23 Critical support zone between $2,560-$2,600 faces retest after converting from resistance Ethereum currently sits at $2,680, marking a 0.40% increase during the previous 24-hour period. The digital asset maintains a market capitalization of approximately $328 billion.

Ethereum (ETH) Price Major Ethereum holders have shifted back into accumulation mode. According to CryptoQuant analytics, addresses containing between 10,000 and 100,000 ETH have acquired 260,000 tokens beginning Saturday.

This accumulation represents a sharp reversal from recent activity. The identical cohort of large holders had previously disposed of 140,000 ETH across a three-day period following the Senate’s stalling of the Clarity Act.

Mid-tier holders exhibited contrasting patterns. Addresses controlling 1,000 to 10,000 ETH maintained relatively stable positions before executing a modest 50,000 ETH reduction over the most recent 48-hour window.

Those managing between 100 and 1,000 ETH continued their distribution trend. This segment has collectively released approximately 140,000 ETH since the Clarity Act developments emerged.

On-exchange metrics reveal withdrawals exceeding deposits in recent sessions. This pattern indicates certain market participants are accumulating during price weakness while others secure gains.

Institutional Appetite Maintains Momentum United States-based spot Ethereum exchange-traded funds recorded their fourth consecutive session of positive net capital flows. Wednesday’s aggregate figure reached $104.6 million.

BlackRock’s ETHA product dominated institutional demand, capturing $50.8 million. This represents approximately half of the total daily inflow volume.

Fidelity’s FETH product followed closely, securing $41.3 million during the identical trading session.

Market analyst Ted, recognized on social platforms as @TedPillows, offered perspective on current market dynamics. He noted ETH is experiencing a minor pullback and anticipates a retest around $2,550 before resuming upward momentum.

Critical Price Level Under Examination Another market observer operating under the handle BATMAN highlighted the $2,560-$2,600 band as a crucial technical zone for ETH. This region previously functioned as overhead resistance and has undergone multiple support validation tests.

$ETH is heading back toward the key $2.56K–$2.60K zone. That was previous resistance and has flipped into support multiple times.

200 EMA sits around $2.46K below. Watching how Ethereum reacts as it gets there. pic.twitter.com/OlxVGqdqsB

— BATMAN ⚡ (@CryptosBatman) September 24, 2026

Should ETH successfully defend this zone during corrective price action, it would validate the transformation from resistance to support. The 200-day exponential moving average hovers nearby at approximately $2,460, providing traders with an additional reference point.

From a technical perspective, ETH currently trades above the median Bollinger Band positioned at $2,547.65. The upper band extends to $2,767.17.

The MACD indicator registers at 96.50, positioned above its signal line at 86.47. The histogram displays a positive reading of 10.02, although the separation between lines remains relatively narrow.

Coinglass metrics indicate $74.5 million in forced liquidations throughout the past 24 hours. Long position liquidations accounted for $44.4 million of that volume.

Overhead resistance markers beyond current pricing include $2,786 and $2,894, with an additional obstacle positioned at $3,177.

Regarding broader market conditions, Brent crude oil advanced nearly 3% Thursday following the collapse of US-Iran diplomatic discussions. The United States 10-year Treasury yield surpassed 5.15%, reaching its most elevated point since June 2007.

Tether (USDT) has funds trapped at an offshore banking partner, EQIBank, which is facing liquidation risk. A United States (US) asset seizure tied to the bank set that off.

Tether said the exposure is limited, representing less than 0.034% of its total assets. It has not disclosed a dollar figure or confirmed the report directly. However, it raises questions as to how much Tether is keeping offshore.

Why EQIBank Is at RiskThe Information first reported the exposure. EQIBank, a digital bank licensed in Dominica, is fighting to recover about $89 million. US authorities seized the money from accounts tied to a payment processor, Capstone Ltd.

Its own filing shows the frozen funds sat at Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase. The seizure took roughly 80% of EQIBank’s total monetary holdings.

That scale is why EQIBank has warned it could face liquidation, the backdrop against which Tether’s own deposits got stuck.

The Real Question Is ConcentrationA single bank holding 0.034% of Tether’s assets is not the risk. What is undisclosed is how much of Tether’s reserves sit in offshore banks overall. That figure would show real exposure, not US Treasuries and money market funds.

Reserve concentration at smaller banks has caused runs before. Several US firms lost deposit access when Silicon Valley Bank failed in 2023.

Tether’s reserve cushion has also been shrinking even after a clean 2025 audit. That raises a related question, whether it could absorb several offshore shocks like this one at once.

Tether’s most recent attestation puts total reserves close to $190 billion, most held in US Treasuries. The offshore-bank slice behind that total is the detail this episode still has not answered.

EQIBank’s case over the seized funds remains active in California. Any move by Tether to break down its offshore exposure will decide whether this stays a footnote.

8h05 ▪ 6 min read ▪ by Ariela R.

Summarize this article with:

In the crypto market, privacy coins are making one of the most spectacular comebacks. According to Glassnode data, the market capitalization of this segment rose from 11.97 billion dollars to 36.51 billion dollars in just five months. Zcash and Monero account for the bulk of this increase with an estimated valuation of 24.5 billion dollars. A figure that astonishes, especially knowing that the rest of the crypto assets have been struggling for months!

In Brief Crypto: +205% for privacy coins since April 2026, representing 24.54 billion dollars in gains. ZEC rises from $319 to $1,507, XMR climbs from $330 to $555 in five months. Grayscale launches the first crypto privacy ETF (ZCSH) listed on NYSE Arca on August 25, 2026. DCG injects $100 million into ZCSH on September 8, validating institutional appetite. The SEC closes its investigation on Zcash without sanction in January 2026, paving the way for ETFs. The Privacy Coin Sector Tripled in 5 Months According to archived data from CoinGecko, the privacy coin market was valued at 11.97 billion dollars on April 9, 2026. On Thursday, September 24, 2026, this same segment weighs 36.51 billion dollars. This represents a jump of about 205% in five months. Two crypto assets account for most of this movement: Zcash and Monero.

ZEC saw its market cap climb by 20.27 billion dollars. The price of this cryptocurrency went from $319 to $1,507 over the period. At the time of writing, it trades around $1,540. It shows an increase of over 3% in the last 24 hours.

For its part, the XMR token shows more modest growth with:

an estimated market capitalization of 4.33 billion dollars; a price growing from $330 to $555. Other crypto assets in the sector show gains, but nothing comparable to the scale of these two movements. Together, Zcash and Monero represent nearly all of the 24.54 billion dollars gained by the privacy coin segment.

Chart showing the price evolution of Zcash and Monero from April to September. Source: CoinGecko Why Is Crypto Privacy Coming Back to the Forefront? The answer lies in two words: blockchain surveillance and privacy. In 2025, illicit cryptocurrency transfers exceeded 154 billion dollars. They involved sanctioned actors like North Korea, Iran, or Russia. Faced with this reality, several governments and companies tightened surveillance of public blockchains in 2026.

Most of the major crypto networks remain fully auditable. This is notably the case for Bitcoin and Ethereum. Every transaction is traceable, as well as balances and movements. For a growing share of crypto investors, this transparency is a risk. According to them, financial freedom erodes when every payment can be scrutinized, restricted or punished.

Zcash and Monero offer an alternative. Their protocols make tracking flows extremely difficult, if not impossible.

ZEC uses zk-SNARKs (zero-knowledge proofs). XMR relies on Ring Signatures and Stealth Addresses. Result: a crypto that truly protects the anonymity of its users.

Chart showing the market capitalization evolution of privacy coins. Source: Glassnode The Second Driver Behind Zcash and Monero’s Rise Is Regulatory and Institutional In January 2026, the SEC officially closed its investigation on the Zcash Foundation without recommending prosecution. This sends a strong signal for a sector long perceived as toxic by crypto regulators.

On August 25, Grayscale converted its Zcash Trust into a spot crypto ETF: the ZCSH. It is listed on NYSE Arca. This is the first ETF on a confidential crypto in the United States. Thirteen days later (on September 8, 2026, to be exact), Digital Currency Group (DCG) traded about 100 million dollars of ZEC for shares of the ZCSH. A gesture that looks like an institutional vote of confidence!

The Other Side of the Crypto Coin: Chun Wang Calls the Rise a “Narrative Bid” F2Pool co-founder Chun Wang describes the current dynamics of the privacy coin market as a rise driven by narrative rather than actual use. In a tweet dated September 8, 2026, he stated:

A large market capitalization doesn’t mean a crypto asset earned its place.

More explicitly, Wang points to structural weaknesses in the Zcash crypto protocol. This includes:

the initial Founders’ Reward; governance conflicts; a vulnerability disclosed in May in the Orchard privacy pool. His sharpest argument concerns the very nature of the crypto:

A currency whose private supply cannot be verified like bitcoin’s, and that needed an emergency fix after a four-year bug, is not “hard money.”

His analysis thus raises an important question: is crypto privacy truly a sustainable investment, or is it simply the most powerful narrative right now in a market lacking catalysts?

Crypto: What Scenarios for the Privacy Coin Market? Several crypto analysts believe that the success of the ZCSH ETF could pave the way for similar crypto products on Monero or other privacy coins. This would force the SEC to rule on potentially more delicate cases.

Other experts think that growing institutional participation might create pressure for viewing keys or integrated compliance tools. Such a shift would create a philosophical fault line within the privacy coin ecosystem itself.

In any case, this gain of 24.5 billion dollars repositions crypto privacy at the center of the financial game. It remains to be seen whether this growth will be accompanied by a regulatory evolution compatible with their DNA. The answer could define the future of the entire crypto market. To be continued…

Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Ariela R.

My name is Ariela, and I am 31 years old. I have been working in the field of web writing for 7 years now. I only discovered trading and cryptocurrency a few years ago, but it is a universe that greatly interests me. The topics covered on the platform allow me to learn more. A singer in my spare time, I also cultivate a great passion for music and reading (and animals!)

DISCLAIMER

The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.

TLDR Table of Contents

Solana now controls 36% of tokenized commodities spot DEX volume, up from about 1% three weeks earlier. Robinhood Chain follows with 26%, while Canton and Ethereum hold 19% and 13%, respectively. Solana’s rise came alongside new commodity products, including tokenized silver, gold, oil, and PAXG collateral support. Despite leading trading volume, Solana holds only $26.8 million in tokenized commodities, compared with Ethereum’s $4.7 billion. Market leadership remains unstable, with Ethereum, BNB Chain, Robinhood Chain, and Solana all leading at different points since July. Solana now leads tokenized commodities trading on decentralized exchanges, according to Blockworks data. The network holds 36% of spot trading volume, up from about 1% three weeks ago. Robinhood Chain follows with 26%, while Canton holds 19% and Ethereum accounts for 13%.

Market Leadership Shifts Rapidly Ethereum controlled most daily tokenized commodity trading volume after tracking began in July 2026. Its share rarely dropped below 80% for much of that period. Avalanche recorded brief increases, but none changed the market structure for long.

The picture changed in August when BNB Chain captured more than half of daily volume on some days. Robinhood Chain then moved into first place by late August. The wider tokenization market has also added tokenized U.S. equities and commodity-backed instruments across more networks.

Solana Gains Share as Products Expand Solana’s rise followed several product launches. Dominion Market introduced tokenized silver through SILV, while GMTrade added trading contracts linked to gold, silver, and oil. Kamino also began accepting PAXG as collateral, and Raydium handles much of the related decentralized trading flow.

PAXG collateral support could keep more tokenized gold inside Solana’s ecosystem. Users can hold the asset while accessing lending markets instead of moving it to another network. This adds another use case beyond direct spot trading.

Asset Value Still Favors Ethereum Trading volume does not match the distribution of tokenized commodity assets. RWA.xyz data for September 25 shows Solana holds $26.8 million in distributed tokenized commodities, equal to 0.55% of the market. Ethereum holds about $4.7 billion, or roughly 95%.

Recent data also shows Solana’s tokenized equity trading share has risen, adding another category of blockchain asset activity. However, BNB Chain holds $87 million in tokenized commodities, while Arbitrum holds $85.8 million. Both totals remain more than three times Solana’s amount.

Robinhood Chain holds only $4.6 million in tokenized commodities, yet it handled about one-quarter of DEX volume on September 23. Elsewhere, firms have introduced direct stock-to-token conversion services as tokenized markets expand across networks.

Solana’s commodity value rose 1.09% over 30 days, while Ethereum fell 4.72% and BNB Chain dropped 7.83%. Daily trading remains small, so new listings can quickly change rankings. Ethereum still holds most of the tokenized commodity supply despite Solana’s current volume lead across decentralized venues tracked in the latest available market data on September 25.

According to a report from Spartan Capital, Robinhood Chain launched its mainnet on July 1, 2026. As of the end of August, on-chain DEX trading volume rose to $1.5 billion, total value locked (TVL) increased to $711 million, and on-chain gas revenue hit $6.6 million in August. The report shows that most of Robinhood Chain’s August trading volume came from Uniswap, with on-chain fees peaking at $2.1 million on August 31. Robinhood operates the sequencer and collects approximately 90% of on-chain fees. After deducting Ethereum settlement costs and a 10% licensing fee paid to Arbitrum DAO, net revenue in August was around $6 million. For Robinhood Earn, users deposit USDG to lend via Morpho. The deposit size grew from $9.5 million on July 1 to $456 million on August 31, accounting for 68% of Robinhood Chain’s TVL at the end of that month. Users earn an estimated annual percentage yield (APY) of around 7%, while the lending side’s APY stood at roughly 3.7% at the end of August. The difference is subsidized by reward funds from Morpho and its lending partners. Meanwhile, Robinhood Chain’s meme ecosystem is growing rapidly. As of the end of August, over 340,000 tokens had been issued on the chain, and August application-layer fees reached $114 million. The report notes that trading volume for meme tokens paired with tokenized stocks is also surging; August trading volume for meme tokens paired with Robinhood Stock Tokens hit $518 million. The report points out that current trading activity on Robinhood Chain is still mainly driven by crypto-native users, and Robinhood’s 27 million funded accounts have not yet migrated to the chain on a large scale. Gas subsidies for Robinhood Wallet will remain in effect until September 29, and Robinhood Earn’s APY is also scheduled to be gradually reduced.

Relevant content

Whale Deposits 541,009 $HYPE ($49.55M) to Kraken

A whale deposited 541,009 $HYPE($49.55M) to #Kraken 3 hours ago.

12 minutes ago

Summary of Bitget CEO’s Live Stream: Some hacker addresses have been frozen, and user funds will not be affected in any way.

Bitget CEO Gracy Chen shared key takeaways from her earlier live stream on social media, including: 1. Affected assets include ETH, XRP, BNB, AVAX, USDT, USDC and other tokens, spanning Ethereum, XRP Ledger, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Optimism, BSC and Base. All on-chain cold wallets have been confirmed secure and were not impacted. 2. Bitget has contacted all affected chain foundations; some foundations have confirmed freezing hacker wallet addresses. The team will continue to follow up on relevant channels and release updates. 3. Bitget stated that based on IP behavioral characteristics and on-chain analysis, the attack method is highly consistent with known patterns of North Korean hacker groups. The platform has reported the incident to relevant authorities and is cooperating with global investigations. 4. Bitget Wallet operates on fully independent infrastructure from the Bitget exchange. This incident had no impact on Bitget Wallet, and all assets in Bitget Wallet are completely secure. 5. Regarding the platform’s financial status, Bitget said that in addition to its over $464 million protection fund, its own assets exceed $1 billion, with user funds fully backed at a 1:1 ratio, and all related data is verifiable on-chain. 6. On the timeline for resuming withdrawals, Bitget noted its goal is to complete a full recovery as soon as possible. A specific time window will be announced immediately once confirmed, and the platform will not commit to unachievable deadlines.

12 minutes ago

Ando raises $20 million in funding: Reimagining Slack to let AI agents serve as direct colleagues.

Beating AI News Brief: Stealth-mode startup Ando has closed a $20 million funding round to build a new Slack alternative designed for both humans and AI agents. The round was backed by Accel, Index Ventures, and Emergence. Ando retains core features like channels, direct messages, group chats, and voice calls, but AI agents have their own identities, permissions, and inboxes. Agents can independently browse and join channels, eliminating the need for humans to tag them (@) to trigger actions, and can proactively reach out to other team members. It supports integration with various AI agents including Codex, Claude, Grokbot, and Devin; teams without existing agents can also use Ando’s hosted version directly. Ando itself has fully stopped using Slack. For example, when a user reports a bug in a chat, agents can independently take the task, assign mobile-related work to another agent, and have a third agent review the code. If the same issue is discussed across multiple channels, agents can proactively pull together relevant personnel and fill in context gaps. Currently, teams across industries including software, real estate, and finance in 15 countries are using Ando.

12 minutes ago

Raft open-sourced its code but is not accepting pull requests, noting that AI coding agents have lowered the cost of writing code, though the expense of code review has not decreased.

Insight Beating AI Flash News: Agent collaboration platform Raft, founded by Richard Qian, former author of Kimi CLI, has released its source code, but is temporarily not accepting external Pull Requests and has not made its internal commit history public. The public GitHub repository is only a release mirror; actual development remains in a private repo, with a full code snapshot synced each version release. The Raft team argues that coding agents have made writing code far too cheap. Generating a seemingly reasonable patch is easy, even generating ten at once is not difficult, but maintainers still spend significant time understanding, verifying, and reviewing this code. In many cases, after reviewing code generated by others using agents, maintainers would rather have their own agents reimplement the code per requirements. Thus, the team aims to explore a "Prompt Request" model: contributors will not necessarily submit code directly, but first outline the problem to solve, its value, and constraints and tradeoffs, before maintainers and agents decide on implementation. This mechanism is not yet officially open; Raft’s GitHub Pull Requests and Issues are currently closed. Raft also challenges the value of traditional commit history. The team believes that with agents in development, rather than tracking every code change, "decision history"—including why changes were made, what approaches were tested, and issues identified by agents—may be more useful. Notably, Raft is source-available, not traditional open source. The FSL-1.1-ALv2 license permits users to view, run, and modify the code, but prohibits using it to offer competing commercial products or services. Each version will automatically convert to Apache 2.0 two years after release.

12 minutes ago

Caixin: Texas Hold'em pro Hu Zhewen has sued Jump Trading and Chinese professor Zhang Yongfeng, suffering consecutive losses after heavy investments in the crypto space.

Poker pro and crypto investor Hu Zhewen made heavy bets in three crypto booms, including algorithmic stablecoins and AI tokens, but suffered a string of losses. Between May 2021 and May 2022, he poured around $80 million into algorithmic stablecoin TerraUSD (UST) and its sister token LUNA. At its peak, his holdings were worth over $800 million, but LUNA’s price later plummeted to near zero. Hu claimed he once invested in blockchain project Stratis, earning a return of “over 1,000 times”. Hu has filed a lawsuit in Chicago, U.S., against global quantitative trading giant Jump Trading, its crypto-related affiliates and executives, seeking at least $500 million in damages. Separately, Hu bet on a new project by Chinese computer professor Zhang Yongfeng last January. Zhang joined Tsinghua University’s Department of Computer Science in 2007 and currently serves as a tenured associate professor in the Department of Computer Science at Rutgers University in the U.S. He has been sued by Hu on multiple charges including “securities fraud”. The token issued by Zhang’s institution, in which Hu invested millions of dollars, has fallen more than 99.6% from its 2025 peak, according to reports. Public records show Hu is a world-class Texas Hold’em poker player: the World Series of Poker (WSOP) website currently lists 58 money finishes, 5 final table appearances and total tournament earnings of around $1.67 million for him. Four years ago, in the $10,000 buy-in SuperMILLION$ high-stakes tournament, Hu reached heads-up against a New Zealand professional player, finishing second and taking home nearly $760,000 — the largest single-event prize of his documented poker career. (Caixin)

12 minutes ago

Iran's Foreign Minister: Iran is willing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days, but has put forward relevant conditions.

According to a report by The Jerusalem Post, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters on Thursday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York that Iran has submitted a proposal to the United States to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days. Araghchi stated that the proposal will be advanced based on the memorandum of understanding reached between the two countries in June this year, but will only be implemented if specific conditions are met. He said, "I think it would be better if this could be completed before the U.S. midterm elections, but that depends on the decision of the U.S. government." Araghchi also noted that Iran does not care about the specific timeline and is in no hurry to push forward with this process.

12 minutes ago

According to Farside’s monitoring, on September 24, total net inflows into U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs hit $190.7 million, broken down as follows: BlackRock’s IBIT: +$162.6 million; Fidelity’s FBTC: +$12.9 million; Morgan Stanley’s MSBT: +$10.2 million; Franklin’s EZBC: +$4.9 million; Bitwise’s BITB: +$4.1 million; WisdomTree’s BTCW: -$4 million. ARK’s ARKB, Invesco’s BTCO, Valkyrie’s BRRR, VanEck’s HODL, Grayscale’s GBTC, and other Bitcoin ETFs saw no net inflows or outflows. Total net inflows into U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs yesterday reached $66.1 million, with breakdown: BlackRock’s ETHA: +$26.8 million; Fidelity’s FETH: +$21.5 million; Grayscale’s ETH: +$17.8 million. BlackRock’s ETHB, Bitwise’s ETHW, 21Shares’ TETH, VanEck’s ETHV, Invesco’s QETH, Franklin’s EZET, Morgan Stanley’s MSSE, and Grayscale’s ETHE recorded no net inflows or outflows.

Relevant content

Token ARGUS on the Arc chain has surged 47.8% over the past 24 hours, with its current market capitalization standing at $27.44 million.

According to GMGN market data, ARGUS, the token of Arc blockchain launchpad ArgusPad, has risen 47.8% over the past 24 hours. Its current market capitalization stands at approximately $27.44 million, with a 24-hour trading volume of around $2.8 million. BlockBeats reminds users that the Arc mainnet has just launched, carrying high early-stage hype risks: most tokens on the network have low trading volumes, insufficient liquidity, and extreme price volatility, so investors should exercise caution.

13 minutes ago

KelpDAO sues LayerZero and its co-founders over the rsETH cross-chain bridge vulnerability.

KelpDAO has issued a statement announcing that Kelp is suing LayerZero and its co-founder Bryan Pellegrino over the rsETH LayerZero cross-chain bridge vulnerability incident earlier this year. The lawsuit alleges the vulnerability originated from LayerZero’s own technical flaws and a breach of its security infrastructure—including LayerZero’s failure to disclose inherent weaknesses and risks in its technology, and its inability to stop attackers from compromising its security infrastructure to exploit the flaw. Over the past several months, LayerZero and Pellegrino publicly blamed Kelp for the incident, but Kelp claims LayerZero had previously reviewed and approved the deployment and configuration of its LayerZero technology in writing. Kelp further stated that following the vulnerability incident, it has taken steps to protect user assets, including migrating the rsETH cross-chain bridge to a more secure cross-chain security standard. The lawsuit seeks to hold LayerZero and Bryan Pellegrino liable for the related losses.

13 minutes ago

The U.S. Secretary of Defense lists Bitcoin in his 2025 financial disclosure, with valuations ranging from approximately $16,000 to $65,000.

According to CNBC, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s newly released 2025 annual financial disclosure shows his household’s cash, retirement investments, and Bitcoin holdings are worth at least approximately $3.1 million. The Bitcoin is valued between $16,000 and $65,000, and one of his three cash accounts exceeds $1 million.

13 minutes ago

Goldman Sachs says the AI sector remains attractive, with a massive $800 billion investment underpinning Asia's hardware supply chain.

Insight Beating AI News Brief: Goldman Sachs Asia Pacific Equity Strategist Timothy Moe said AI-related stocks remain attractive despite rising government bond yields. “We are firmly in the ‘higher for longer’ camp,” he stated. He noted that hyperscale cloud computing firms are projected to invest roughly $800 billion this year, with that figure potentially reaching $1.2 trillion by 2027 – a key indicator of demand for Asia’s AI hardware supply chain. Moe added that the “extremely low” valuations in Asian markets also offer extra support for related stocks, as the region’s overall stock market currently trades at a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of around 10, sitting at the lower end of its historical valuation range. He further noted that corporate earnings growth will act as a buffer against the high interest rate environment. For the rest of this year, Moe expects markets to stay “somewhat choppy” amid the upcoming U.S. midterm elections, with high energy prices and geopolitical risks amplifying market pressure. However, after this phase, he believes markets could rally by year-end, driven by corporate earnings growth and valuation recovery. (Jin10)

13 minutes ago

Bybit’s CEO: Ready to assist Bitget in any way possible at any time.

Bybit co-founder and CEO Ben Zhou posted on social media that the Bybit team is ready to provide assistance in any way possible for the recent Bitget hack incident. When Bybit was targeted by a hacker attack, Bitget extended its support to the platform. Bybit is updating its LazarusBounty bounty website to help Bitget track and determine the flow of stolen funds. BlockBeats previously reported that on February 21, 2025, Bybit suffered what was then the largest hack in cryptocurrency history, with approximately $1.46 billion to $1.5 billion worth of Ethereum stolen, an attack later attributed to North Korea’s Lazarus Group. Following the breach, Bitget quickly transferred 40,000 ETH to Bybit (valued at roughly $105 million to $106 million at the time), with the funds sourced from Bitget’s own reserves, not user assets. The support came in the form of an interest-free, uncollateralized, open-ended loan, intended to help Bybit cope with withdrawal runs and replenish liquidity.

13 minutes ago

Bitget Wallet: User assets are not affected by the current Bitget incident; users are advised to beware of phishing posts spreading FUD.

Bitget Wallet’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) Alvin Kan stated in a social media post that Bitget Wallet is a self-custody wallet, meaning users’ assets remain on-chain and are fully controlled by the users themselves. In short, Bitget Wallet users’ assets are not affected by the ongoing incident involving Bitget Exchange. The team has been conducting preventive checks and reviews of internal systems as a precaution, and no security impacts have been detected to date. Additionally, the team has observed numerous scam posts impersonating Bitget Wallet and distributing phishing links. We urge everyone to exercise extreme caution and only access updates through official channels.

13 minutes ago

3 min read

Ondo Finance was shopped to potential buyers after founder Nathan Allman’s death. (CoinDesk)Summary

Ondo Finance was shopped to prospective buyers after founder and CEO Nathan Allman’s death, according to people familiar with the matter.A legal fight over control of the company has likely put any sale plans on hold, one of the people said.Ondo offers tokenized Treasuries and stocks, with more than $3.8 billion across its products.Tokenization platform Ondo Finance was shopped to prospective buyers after the sudden death of its founder and CEO, Nathan Allman, earlier this year, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

The outreach occurred sometime after Allman’s death on May 25, according to two of the people who spoke on condition of anonymity, as the matter is private.

But who, exactly, was behind the attempts to sell Ondo Finance remains unclear.

In early August, Allman’s estate filed suit against Ondo’s acting CEO Ian De Bode, alleging an unlawful power and money grab and sparking a bitter corporate control fight.

Nathan Allman died unexpectedly and without a will at 32, creating uncertainty over the fate of his controlling stake in Ondo Finance and his massive trove of ONDO tokens. After a probate process, his estate was awarded to his parents, 77-year-old Kathleen Allman and 82-year-old Lawrence Allman.

Under a current court order, De Bode remains Ondo’s CEO and can oversee day-to-day operations, but he cannot make major changes to the company while the dispute over its control is being resolved. A separate court petition by Allman’s half-sister and an Ondo investor sought to limit Kathleen’s control over her share of the estate. Kathleen Allman denied the petition’s allegations.

Read more: The Ondo Finance succession crisis gets messier as Kathleen Allman’s daughter alleges ‘dementia’, alcoholism, and reckless spending

The escalating legal fight for control of the firm has likely put any plans for a sale on hold, one of the people said.

An Ondo spokesman denied that the company was, at any point, looking for buyers, calling the talk of a potential sale “wholly untrue.”

“Nobody at the company has shopped it for sale, been in sales talks, or engaged or asked anyone to do so on its behalf. There are no facts to support this,” the spokesperson added.

The estate declined to comment.

Founded in 2021 by former Goldman Sachs executives, New York-based Ondo offers tokenized U.S. Treasuries and stocks and has more than $3.8 billion across its products, making it one of the largest platforms for real-world assets on blockchain. Ondo’s OUSG fund holds investments in BlackRock’s tokenized BUIDL fund.

Ondo did not disclose a valuation in either of its announced funding rounds, and CoinDesk was unable to determine what price was discussed during the sale talks.

The company has raised $24 million in equity funding: $4 million in 2021 and $20 million in 2022. A separate $10 million token sale brings publicly reported fundraising to $34 million. Ondo’s equity backers include Pantera Capital, Founders Fund, Coinbase Ventures and Tiger Global.

Ondo was shopped amid a wave of crypto dealmaking, including acquisitions aimed at expanding tokenized finance. Announced crypto mergers and acquisitions totaled $12.9 billion in the second quarter, the industry’s second-largest quarterly sum, according to Architect Partners.

The quarter’s biggest deal was Bullish’s $4.2 billion acquisition of transfer agent Equiniti, a bet on bringing traditional financial assets onto blockchain rails.

Bullish is the parent company of CoinDesk.

Read more: Power struggle erupts at Ondo Finance after founder’s death

12345678910The Definitive Stablecoin Landscape Series: Asia Pacific

The Definitive Stablecoin Landscape Series: Asia Pacific

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

Sep 15, 2026

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

Why it matters:

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

Hyperliquid, a decentralized perpetuals exchange and L1 ecosystem, has achieved a significant milestone by surpassing $7 billion in total value locked (TVL). Over the past month, the platform has generated nearly $60 million in protocol revenue, placing it among the leading decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols in terms of both capital locked and income generated. The native asset, HYPE, is closely tied to the platform’s activity and fee structure, which may contribute to its current performance and market perception.

The milestone of crossing $7 billion in TVL is seen as a strong indicator of Hyperliquid’s growth potential. Despite this positive news, some market fluctuations have been observed. The probability of Hyperliquid reaching a price of $100 by the end of 2026 has adjusted to 82% from 86% in the past day, although it remains significantly higher than the 46% observed a week ago. This adjustment suggests that while confidence remains high, market participants are recalibrating expectations based on recent developments.

The activity around Hyperliquid continues to reflect a favorable outlook, with various scenarios being considered. Reports of sustained volumes and potential institutional interest could further influence the market’s assessment of Hyperliquid’s prospects.

Key Takeaways Hyperliquid’s recent surpassing of $7 billion in TVL suggests significant growth and market interest in the platform. Market participants appear to view the platform’s revenue generation as supportive of a positive outlook, with the probability of reaching $100 by the end of 2026 remaining high. The 4% drop in probability over the past 24 hours may indicate short-term recalibration of expectations amid ongoing market developments. What to Watch Observers should monitor further developments such as potential partnerships or listings on major exchanges, which could influence Hyperliquid’s competitive position and pricing. Additionally, any changes in the regulatory landscape or security incidents could impact market sentiment. Key indicators will include Hyperliquid’s ability to maintain its revenue growth and TVL, as well as broader DeFi market trends.

Get live prediction-market analysis, powered by Vera. Sign up for Vera.

Term Structure

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h December 31 81.5% -0.5¢ $1K View market → January 1 2027 3.5% 0.0¢ — View market → January 1 2027 2.5% 0.0¢ $5 View market → January 1 2027 3.6% 0.0¢ $12 View market → January 1 2027 2.5% 0.0¢ — View market → January 1 2027 6.5% -0.5¢ $379 View market → January 1 2027 5% 0.0¢ $3K View market → January 1 2027 7% 0.0¢ $3K View market → Updated 5min ago

Strive has generated an estimated $85.88 million through sales of its SATA preferred stock over three trading sessions, enough to buy about 1,002 Bitcoin at prices recorded by BitcoinTreasuries.net.

Summary

BitcoinTreasuries.net estimates that SATA sales raised $85.88 million from Sep. 21 to Sep. 23. Its estimated Bitcoin figure is based on trading data, not a confirmed Strive purchase. Strive last reported holding 26,355 BTC after buying 1,355 BTC in the prior week. Strategy bought 950 BTC in its latest reported week while using cash to repurchase STRC shares. BitcoinTreasuries.net’s SATA tracker estimates how many shares Strive issues through its at-the-market program by examining trading volume while SATA is at or above its $100 stated value.

It then estimates net proceeds after sales commissions and divides that amount by Bitcoin’s price during the session. The tracker’s figure is therefore an estimate of potential buying power; Strive’s next disclosure would establish any actual purchase and its cost.

Strive’s SATA sales are estimated at $85.88 million For Sep. 21, the tracker estimates that Strive sold about 284,000 SATA shares and received $27.69 million in net proceeds. At an average Bitcoin price of $86,001, that sum would cover approximately 321.97 BTC.

The largest of the three estimated sessions came on Sep. 22. BitcoinTreasuries.net puts net proceeds at $36.08 million from roughly 370,000 shares, equivalent to about 418.27 BTC at an average price of $86,266.

On Sep. 23, estimated sales of another 226,700 shares produced $22.11 million. The tracker calculates that the proceeds could buy 261.43 BTC at an average price of $84,556. Together, the three daily estimates come to $85.88 million and 1,001.67 BTC.

Those daily share counts are estimates of issuance through the program, rather than a count confirmed in a new company filing. BitcoinTreasuries.net says it calibrates its model against Strive’s subsequent disclosures. Its method also separates potential SATA issuance from ordinary trading between investors, which does not send money to Strive.

The distinction matters because proceeds raised on a given day need not pay for a Bitcoin trade on that same day. Strive also holds cash and can use more than one source of funding. An estimated BTC equivalent should not be added to the company’s reported holdings before Strive discloses a purchase.

Strive’s last filing put its treasury at 26,355 BTC Strive’s most recent reported acquisition covered Sep. 14 through Sep. 18, when it bought 1,355 BTC for approximately $107.7 million at an average of $79,475 per coin. The purchase lifted its disclosed balance from 25,000 BTC to 26,355 BTC. At the time, its SATA shares outstanding increased by 786,194, while cash and equivalents rose to approximately $229.6 million.

Chief Executive Matt Cole described how Strive raised capital during that reporting period. “Warrant exercises began last week, generating $21.2M in gross proceeds,” he wrote on X. “Including those proceeds, 57.7% of total capital raised came from SATA proceeds.”

The company had reached 25,000 BTC a week earlier after acquiring 469 BTC for approximately $36.6 million. Strive said proceeds from SATA funded that purchase. Its Sep. 14 filing also showed that SATA shares outstanding rose by 402,541 during the period, while its effective common share count increased by 34,206.

Earlier in September, Strive added 1,375 BTC for approximately $109 million. That purchase took its balance to 24,531 BTC, following an acquisition of 1,800 BTC in late August. The successive company filings show completed purchases; the Sep. 21–23 tracker readings concern a later period for which the supplied figures remain estimates.

Strategy bought Bitcoin while repurchasing STRC Strategy, the largest public corporate Bitcoin holder, disclosed a different use of its cash in the week ended Sep. 20. According to its SEC filing, it bought 950 BTC for $75.7 million at an average price of $79,670, taking its holdings to 846,000 BTC. Strategy reported an aggregate acquisition cost of about $63.8 billion, or $75,416 per coin.

During the same week, Strategy spent $174 million repurchasing approximately 1.77 million shares of its STRC preferred stock. As crypto.news reported on Sep. 21, Strategy made no sales through its at-the-market programs for that period. It paid for both the Bitcoin and the STRC repurchases from existing USD Cash, which fell from roughly $1.30 billion to $1.05 billion.

A week without new STRC issuance does not establish that Strategy can no longer raise money through its securities programs. Its earlier filing showed that it sold MSTR common shares at the end of August and directed $369.7 million of the proceeds toward 4,603 BTC. The Sep. 20 filing establishes only how Strategy financed its latest reported transactions.

Strive also owns Strategy’s preferred stock. Its filings showed a holding of 505,000 STRC shares through Sep. 18, valued at approximately $49.7 million on that date. Strive’s own preferred shares, SATA, carried a 13% annualized dividend rate for September, compared with 12% for STRC, according to the companies’ disclosures reviewed in earlier preferred-stock coverage.

U.S. investors can check the next SEC disclosures Both Strive’s ASST common shares and SATA preferred shares trade on Nasdaq, according to its SEC filing. The securities give U.S. investors different claims on the same company: common shareholders own equity, while SATA holders have the preferred rights set out in its terms. Strive reports changes in its Bitcoin balance, cash, and outstanding share counts in its filings.

The next Strive filing can establish whether the company bought Bitcoin after Sep. 18 and how many SATA shares were outstanding at the end of the new reporting period. Its last filing also recorded 505,000 STRC shares held and $229.6 million in cash and equivalents as of Sep. 18.

Electric car manufacturer Tesla has made a notable change to its Dogecoin (DOGE) payment policy. The company has removed the statement “Note: Dogecoin is also accepted for select products” from the main payment and pricing support page for the Tesla Shop.

Some of Tesla’s localized and non-English support pages still contain the same statement. For example, the Tesla Shop payment pages for Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, and Denmark still state that Dogecoin can be accepted for selected products.

On the other hand, Tesla’s dedicated Dogecoin support page appears to remain active. The page states that users can purchase eligible Tesla products featuring the Dogecoin symbol using DOGE, and the company only lists Dogecoin as the accepted cryptocurrency.

There is no official statement from the company indicating that this development means DOGE payments have been discontinued for some products. Previously, CEO Elon Musk announced that Bitcoin payments were suspended indefinitely due to environmental concerns.

*This is not investment advice.

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

Tether plans to issue USDT natively on Bitcoin through RGB. RGB uses Bitcoin for commitments while keeping contract data off-chain. Morgan Stanley personnel reportedly discussed the infrastructure, but no bank rollout has been announced. Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino has put Bitcoin back at the center of USDT’s expansion strategy, saying the world’s largest stablecoin is “coming home” as institutional discussions emerge around its Bitcoin-native infrastructure.

USDT on Bitcoin. It's coming home https://t.co/JnUo8og7Vv

— Paolo Ardoino 🤖 (@paoloardoino) September 24, 2026

Tether has already committed to issuing USDT through RGB, potentially opening Bitcoin to a stablecoin market worth roughly $183.5 billion without requiring Tether to build a blockchain of its own.

The opportunity is not $183.5 billion suddenly migrating onto Bitcoin. It is whether Bitcoin can capture a meaningful share of stablecoin settlement that currently happens elsewhere.

USDT Is Coming to Bitcoin, Not a Tether Blockchain Ardoino’s latest comment follows speculation over whether Tether might eventually create a proprietary blockchain.

That is not the strategy the company has announced.

Tether said in August 2025 that it would bring USDT to RGB, which had reached Bitcoin mainnet with its v0.11.1 release. The integration is designed to let users hold and transfer Bitcoin and USDT from the same wallet while using Bitcoin as the underlying commitment layer.

“Bitcoin deserves a stablecoin that feels truly native, lightweight, private, and scalable,” Ardoino said when Tether announced the project.

RGB matters because it does not work like an Ethereum-style smart-contract network.

Its architecture uses client-side validation, meaning participants validate the contract history relevant to their assets rather than requiring every network node to store and validate the complete contract state.

Contract data remains off-chain. Compact cryptographic commitments are anchored to Bitcoin, while single-use seals tied to Bitcoin UTXOs help establish ownership transitions and prevent the same state from being reused.

That gives Tether a route onto Bitcoin without creating another global execution layer.

One Bitcoin Stack, Three Different Jobs USDT ON BITCOIN

Three Layers, Three Jobs

01

SETTLEMENT FOUNDATION

Bitcoin

Provides the UTXOs and proof-of-work-secured commitment layer used by RGB.

02

ASSET LAYER

RGB v0.11.1

Issues and transfers assets through client-side validation and Bitcoin-anchored single-use seals.

03

PAYMENT LAYER

Lightning

RGB supports assets moving through Lightning channels for faster off-chain payments.

Key distinction: USDT would use this infrastructure rather than migrate onto a new Tether-owned blockchain.

RGB’s design also changes what “on Bitcoin” means.

USDT contract state would not simply be written into every Bitcoin block for the entire network to process. Each recipient instead validates the relevant history locally, while Bitcoin provides the commitments that make those state changes verifiable.

RGB says its assets can also move natively through typed Lightning channels rather than relying on a bridge.

For stablecoins, that combination targets two constraints simultaneously: using Bitcoin as the security foundation without requiring every payment to compete directly for base-layer blockspace.

Morgan Stanley Puts Institutions Into the Conversation The latest institutional angle comes from Viktor Ihnatiuk, co-founder of Bitcoin infrastructure company Utexo.

Ihnatiuk said he discussed USDT on Bitcoin with Morgan Stanley personnel in Washington, with the conversation involving Utexo’s work around the technology. Ardoino subsequently amplified the development with his “coming home” comment.

There is an important limit to what can be concluded from that exchange.

Morgan Stanley has not announced a USDT settlement product, commercial launch or formal deployment. The reported discussions show institutional interest around the infrastructure, not a confirmed banking product.

That distinction also makes the next stage easier to measure.

A bank discussing Bitcoin-native stablecoin infrastructure is interesting. A bank using it to settle real transactions would be materially different.

Bitcoin Is Competing for Stablecoin Settlement Tether already distributes USDT across established blockchain networks, so Bitcoin is not entering an empty market.

It has to win activity from rails where exchanges, wallets, market makers and users already have deep stablecoin infrastructure.

That changes how a successful launch should be judged.

Total USDT supply says little about Bitcoin adoption. More useful indicators would be USDT issued through RGB, transfer volume, active wallets, Lightning liquidity supporting RGB assets, exchange integrations and institutional settlement activity.

Those metrics would show whether the integration is becoming financial infrastructure or simply another supported network.

The technical architecture gives Bitcoin a distinctive pitch.

It can offer the monetary security of the base chain, an asset protocol that keeps contract state largely client-side and a payment network designed to move value without waiting for an individual base-layer confirmation for every transaction.

But architecture does not create liquidity by itself.

The Test Starts After USDT Goes Live Tether bringing USDT to Bitcoin would remove one technical barrier between the world’s largest stablecoin and the world’s largest crypto asset.

The economic test comes afterward.

If USDT balances begin accumulating through RGB, Lightning channels develop usable stablecoin liquidity and financial institutions move from discussions to live transactions, Bitcoin would be doing something materially different from simply securing BTC ownership.

It would be competing for the dollar settlement activity that has historically concentrated on other crypto networks.

That is the number worth watching, not Tether’s total market capitalization.

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

Circle’s Arc blockchain just turned three days old, and institutional borrowers have already pulled more than $90 million in USDC against deposits of cirBTC, the chain’s wrapped Bitcoin token.

The figure represents a dramatic acceleration from the chain’s earliest hours. Borrowing volumes started at roughly $1.37 million shortly after cirBTC went live on September 21, then climbed to $14.3 million within days.

How the plumbing works Arc is Circle’s EVM-compatible Layer 1, purpose-built for what the company calls stablecoin-native finance. The mainnet launched around mid-September 2026, and cirBTC followed on September 21 as the chain’s first major financial primitive.

The token is backed 1:1 by Bitcoin held at Circle National Trust, with reserves verifiable on-chain through Chainlink Proof of Reserve.

Advertisement

The borrowing process works through what Circle calls Digital Asset-Backed Borrowing, or DABB. Eligible Circle Mint clients deposit BTC, mint cirBTC against it, supply that cirBTC to a lending market on Morpho Blue, and then borrow USDC that settles directly to their Mint balance.

Loan-to-value ratios are set by the lending protocol itself, not by Circle. One example market showed an 86% LTV.

One notable restriction: clients based in New York are excluded from DABB.

Who’s providing the liquidity Two names keep appearing on the supply side of these markets: Galaxy and Keyrock. Both firms have been acting as primary liquidity providers to the cirBTC/USDC lending pools on Morpho Blue, which helps explain why borrowing capacity scaled so quickly.

On launch day itself, deposits of USDC and EURC reportedly exceeded $150 million, suggesting the supply side was well-seeded before borrowers even showed up.

Why institutions want this The core value proposition is straightforward: borrow dollars without selling your Bitcoin. For institutions with large BTC positions, this solves a real problem. Selling Bitcoin to raise working capital triggers taxable events and forces them to give up upside exposure. Borrowing against it does neither.

The rapid scaling from $1.37 million to $90 million in roughly three days suggests pent-up demand among institutions that wanted Bitcoin-backed borrowing but couldn’t stomach the counterparty risk of existing DeFi options.

Whether the $90 million figure holds up under scrutiny is worth watching. Early reporting on Arc’s launch showed some discrepancies between published snapshots and actual on-chain volumes, with some figures reflecting lower borrowing activity than headline numbers suggested. The gap between deposits ($150 million-plus) and borrowing ($90 million) also indicates that a meaningful chunk of supplied capital hasn’t been matched with borrowers yet.

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

ARK Invest has moved its Venture Fund onto the Ethereum blockchain, giving eligible investors a way to subscribe and redeem their holdings entirely onchain using USDC. The fund, listed under the ticker ARKVX as a Class D share, processed its first tokenized subscriptions through Securitize’s platform on September 24, 2026.

A $1.3 billion actively managed fund, one holding stakes in private companies like SpaceX and OpenAI, is now accessible through a crypto wallet and a stablecoin transfer.

How the mechanics actually work The subscription flow borrows from the ERC-7540 standard, which handles asynchronous vault requests. An investor submits a USDC subscription request and it gets recorded onchain right away. The actual fund tokens land in the investor’s wallet only after end-of-day net asset value calculations are complete, meaning the price you pay reflects that day’s officially calculated NAV rather than a spot market quote.

NAV stood at $60.49 per share just before the token launch on September 23, 2026. The 2% subscription fee is deducted before NAV is applied, so investors are effectively paying that fee on the gross amount sent before their share count is determined.

Each tokenized interest represents a 1:1 claim on shares of the underlying ARK Venture Fund. The actual fund shares sit at BNY Mellon as custodian, preserving the legal and regulatory structure investors would expect from a traditional interval fund.

Redemptions follow the same onchain logic. Investors submit requests through Securitize’s platform, those requests are recorded immediately, and settlement happens post-NAV. There is no secondary market planned for the tokenized assets, so liquidity remains what it was before tokenization: quarterly repurchase offers capped at 5% of outstanding shares, with the possibility of proration if demand for redemptions exceeds that limit in any given quarter.

The fund underneath the token ARKVX’s portfolio targets disruptive innovation, with concentrated exposure to sectors like artificial intelligence and aerospace. Holdings include private market names that most retail investors cannot normally access, SpaceX and OpenAI among them.

The fund reported a 20.35% return in the second quarter of 2026, outpacing the S&P 500’s 15.20% gain over the same period. Year-to-date through mid-2026, performance reached 26.71%. Assets under management stood at approximately $1.3 billion as of June 30, 2026.

Annual expenses run at approximately 3.49%. The minimum investment is $500, a deliberately low floor designed to bring in investors who would normally be priced out of private market exposure. Most interval funds and alternative vehicles aimed at accredited investors set minimums in the tens of thousands of dollars.

What this means for tokenized funds broadly ARK made a direct investment in Securitize in October 2025, so this product is partly an expression of that strategic bet paying out in product form.

Carlos Domingo, Securitize’s chief executive, framed the significance around moving established financial products onto blockchain rails rather than building new crypto-native products from scratch.

Cathie Wood described the launch as evidence of ARK’s commitment to the evolution of capital markets.

The quarterly liquidity structure is worth watching closely. Running redemption requests onchain adds transparency to the queue, since pending requests are visible on the blockchain, but it does not add liquidity. Investors who need to exit quickly in a stressed market will face the same constraints they would in a traditional interval fund structure, just with a cleaner digital record of the line they are standing in.

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

Blockchain security firm @hackenclub has flagged what it describes as a significant and suspicious outflow from wallets publicly labeled as belonging to cryptocurrency exchange @bitget. The firm traced roughly $145 million in assets, including ETH, USDT, USDC, and tokenized gold, moving out of Bitget hot and cold wallets on September 24, 2026, with the pattern consistent with unauthorized access. No official cause has been confirmed.

Funds Rapidly Converted and Dispersed The on-chain trail points to a fast-moving and deliberate operation.

Activity on the Arbitrum network was among the first to draw attention.

The funds are now reported to be spread across six newly created addresses.

No Statement from Bitget, Users Report Blocked Withdrawals Meanwhile, some users are reporting that their own withdrawal requests have been blocked or placed under review, adding to concerns about the state of the exchange's operations.

The root cause of the Bitget outflows remains unverified. This article will be updated as new information becomes available.

Sources:
Crypto Briefing: Bitget faces hack concerns after $183 million in crypto moves
Bitcoin Sistemi: The Bitget Hack Is Still Ongoing, There Are New Developments

Less than a month after launching on NYSE Arca, Grayscale’s spot Zcash ETF has crossed $914 million in net assets. That’s a roughly threefold increase from the $304 to $313 million the fund held immediately after converting from the legacy Grayscale Zcash Trust on August 25, 2026.

The growth came from two directions at once: cumulative net inflows landing between $233 million and $271 million by mid-September, and a ZEC price surge that saw the token climb above $1,500, with intraday highs brushing $1,600.

Inside the fund’s rapid expansion Trading under the ticker ZCSH, the ETF is the first US-listed product offering direct spot exposure to Zcash. Its ZEC holdings grew by approximately 28% to 596,269 ZEC as of September 18, 2026, entirely through in-kind creations rather than cash purchases.

The single largest deposit came from DCG International Investments Ltd., which contributed roughly 85,705 ZEC in kind. DCG is the parent company of Grayscale Investments, so the contribution is less a ringing third-party endorsement and more a related-party capital injection.

At current holdings, ZCSH controls about 3.5% of Zcash’s total supply.

Trading volume exceeded $11 billion shortly after the ETF went live.

The fund carries a 2.5% expense ratio. Coinbase Custody handles the safekeeping of ZEC holdings. On September 30, Grayscale executed a 3-for-1 forward share split to bring the per-share price down after weeks of appreciation.

Why privacy coins are having a moment Zcash uses zero-knowledge proofs to enable shielded transactions, meaning users can transact without revealing sender, receiver, or amount details on the public blockchain.

Shortly after Grayscale’s launch, 21Shares introduced a European Zcash ETP on September 21-22, 2026, giving investors outside the US another regulated on-ramp.

On-chain activity for ZEC has risen alongside the ETF interest. Futures open interest hit record levels during September.

What the $1B milestone means for the broader landscape The DCG-affiliated in-kind contribution of roughly 85,705 ZEC accounts for a meaningful slice of total inflows, so organic external demand may be somewhat lower than the headline number suggests. Stripping out the related-party deposit still leaves well over $100 million in outside capital.

The 2.5% expense ratio could become a competitive pressure point. The 21Shares ETP in Europe shows that competitors are already circling.

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

Code Contribution to facilitate developer participation and experimentation with the new bridgeless cross-ledger protocol Hashgraph is also calling for participants to join the Cross-Ledger Early Adopter Program, which offers full access to a Hashgraph-hosted testnet environment for selected participants , /PRNewswire/ -- Hedera has contributed CLPR (pronounced "clipper"), the bridgeless Cross-Ledger Protocol in development by Hashgraph, to Linux Foundation Decentralized Trust (LFDT) as a new lab.

Hashgraph-Logo Blockchain networks today largely operate as distinct ecosystems — each with its own consensus rules, token standards and execution environment. Assets issued on one ledger are generally unable to interact natively with another. Workarounds such as bridges and wrapped assets have emerged to address this fragmentation, but can introduce additional security risks, intermediaries and liquidity requirements. CLPR aims to address these challenges with a new approach to cross-ledger interoperability and, through LFDT Labs, is inviting the broader open-source developer community to help shape, test and advance the protocol.

"Cross-ledger interoperability is key to unlocking the flow of value across networks and platforms," said Daniela Barbosa, General Manager, Decentralized Technologies, Linux Foundation, and Executive Director, LF Decentralized Trust. "As a new LFDT lab, CLPR will leverage open development to shape a protocol that fuels collaboration across the industry. With this contribution, Hedera is once again showing its commitment to vendor neutral, collaborative development of critical shared technologies."

Bridgeless by design, CLPR uses state proofs to allow ledgers to verify each other's states directly, with no intermediaries in between. Rather than working around the liquidity fragmentation problem with bridges and relayers, CLPR aims to end the "trapped liquidity era" altogether. It establishes cryptographic trust directly between ledgers so CLPR-enabled applications can move tokens, data, and messages freely and securely across networks without a bridge.

Now, as a LFDT lab, CLPR becomes an openly developed codebase. Developers can experiment with the CLPR codebase in the LFDT Labs GitHub repository and explore different use cases. This gives the project a structured path to grow: LFDT Labs enables participants to refine this early-stage work by building a community, inviting contributions and establishing momentum before a project reaches top-level LFDT project status.

Dr. Leemon Baird, Co-Founder at Hedera and Chief Scientist at Hashgraph, said: "Just weeks ago marked the two-year anniversary of Hedera's establishment as a founding Premier Member of the Linux Foundation Decentralized Trust, donating the entirety of the Hedera codebase to LFDT as Project Hiero. That commitment to open collaboration is exactly what's needed to solve one of the industry's most persistent problems: network interoperability. When underpinning an application, CLPR is designed to fix that cryptographically so data, assets and messages move freely without a single point of failure to attack. Today's announcement that Hedera is contributing another protocol to LFDT shows that our commitment is only growing, and we're excited to see how developers experiment with CLPR's capabilities."

The contribution of CLPR to the LFDT ecosystem coincides with a call-out for participants to join Hashgraph's Cross-Ledger Early Adopter Program. Involvement is welcomed from financial institutions, fintechs, asset issuers, liquidity providers, and corporations.

The program is structured to focus on three distinct use cases: Cross-border payments and in-flight FX, cross-ledger settlement, and collateral mobility. This 3-phased virtual program offers full access to a Hashgraph-hosted testnet environment, where participants can move real test assets safely using a CLPR-enabled application layer. Technical participants will also have access to an assigned integration expert to support their progress. The program aims to select participants from a range of countries in order to bake in cross-border regulatory and compliance considerations from the beginning.

To register interest and help shape the Cross-Ledger Early Adopter program ahead of its full market launch, visit hashgraph.com/clpr-early-adopter-program.

Get Involved with CLPR

As an LFDT lab, CLPR is open to developers, researchers and organizations interested in exploring cross-ledger interoperability. Community members are invited to review the code, evaluate the protocol's approach, propose use cases, open issues and contribute to its ongoing development.

CLPR LFDT Lab: LFDT-CLPR • GitHub 
Source code: LFDT-CLPR repositories • GitHub 
Contributing: GitHub - LFDT-CLPR/governance • GitHub 
LFDT Labs: Labs – LF Decentralized Trust
Technical Meetup: An Architectural Deep Dive into New CLPR (Cross-Ledger Protocol) Lab 

About Hedera
Hedera is the trust layer of the digital economy, providing fast, secure and efficient distributed ledger technology (DLT) powered by hashgraph technology. With an open-source ecosystem, predictable low-cost fees and carbon-negative operations, Hedera provides developers and organizations with infrastructure for building scalable decentralized applications with real-world impact.

Governed by a diverse council of leading global institutions, Hedera supports innovation across tokenization, AI, digital identity, DeFi and sustainable finance. In 2024, Hedera contributed its network codebase to Linux Foundation Decentralized Trust as Hiero, furthering its commitment to open-source development and community governance.

For more information, visit hedera.com

About Hashgraph
Hashgraph is an enterprise software firm powering the next generation of connected digital markets. The company develops solutions for financial services that leverage hashgraph technology and provides ongoing support to the Hedera public network. Through cross-ledger interoperability, private network infrastructure, and tokenization platforms, Hashgraph enables institutions to issue, trade, and manage assets seamlessly across systems, helping to drive a more connected digital economy.

For more information, visit hashgraph.com

Contact: [email protected]

SOURCE Hedera

$ZAMA is now live on Solana via Sunrise, so Solana users can trade it across the ecosystem, with liquidity wherever they already trade.

Today, we're expanding access to $ZAMA on Solana. Next, we want to bring FHE-powered confidentiality to Solana itself.

Welcome, SolanaSolana made onchain finance fast. Transactions settle in under a second, fees are fractions of a cent, and onchain markets now run at a scale that looked impossible a few years ago.

But like every other major blockchain, Solana is public. Every balance, every swap and every wallet's full history can be read by anyone, forever. On a chain this fast and this active, that openness has real costs:

Your strategy is public. A trade can be seen, copied or front-run the moment it is sent.Your wallet is your identity. Once someone links an address to you, they can see your holdings and your history.Institutions stay away. Payroll, treasury management and B2B payments can't move onchain if competitors can read every transaction.Transparency is what lets anyone verify a blockchain. But verifying transactions shouldn't require exposing everyone's financial information.

Zama's answer: Fully Homomorphic EncryptionZama, the fastest growing confidentiality protocol for onchain finance, builds confidentiality infrastructure for blockchains using Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE). FHE is a type of cryptography that lets computers process data while it stays encrypted.

In practice, this means a smart contract can check that you have enough balance, execute a transfer and update an app's state without ever seeing the actual numbers. Only you, and whoever you choose to share with, can decrypt your data. The chain stays verifiable and composable, and your information stays confidential.

FHE was first proposed in 1978 and remained theoretical for more than 30 years. Craig Gentry published the first working construction in 2009, but it was far too slow to be useful. Zama was founded in 2020 by Rand Hindi and Pascal Paillier, one of the pioneers of FHE research, to make it practical. Today, Zama has one of the largest teams of FHE cryptographers in the world, and became the first FHE unicorn after its $57M Series B in 2025.

The HTTPS moment for blockchainsIn the early days of the internet, most traffic was sent in plaintext. HTTPS changed that. Encryption became the default, and most people never had to think about it again.

The Zama Protocol aims to do the same for blockchains: confidentiality by default, built into the infrastructure, without users or developers having to change how they work.

Why Solana, and why nowToday's listing brings $ZAMA natively to the Solana community. It also signals where we're heading.

The Zama Protocol launched on Ethereum, and Solana has long been part of our roadmap. Bringing FHE-based confidentiality to Solana means that, in the future, Solana developers could build:

Confidential tokens and payments: balances and transfer amounts that stay encrypted onchainConfidential trading: order flow that others can't front-run or copyConfidential DeFi: lending, treasury and payroll apps that institutions can actually useOnchain compliance: rules enforced without exposing user dataSolana brought speed to onchain finance. Zama wants to add confidentiality. And we're just getting started.

What is $ZAMA?$ZAMA is the native utility token of the Zama Protocol:

Staking: Network operators stake $ZAMA to secure the protocol and earn rewards.Fees: Protocol fees, such as those for decrypting data or verifying encrypted inputs, are paid in $ZAMA.Through Sunrise, $ZAMA is available on Solana as a single canonical token that can be traded natively across the ecosystem.

Official $ZAMA address on Solana: 4Zp52aF4hZi9fzH19xpbWKYKQvgLyCN67KFbrQDqeTKh

Learn moreHow to buy $ZAMARead the LitepaperFollow Zama on XContact the team