Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Senate Republicans released a revised CLARITY Act draft hours before the cloture vote. It runs to 635 pages, up from 616, and one of the new pieces defines an ancillary asset in a way that settles XRP’s status in secondary markets regardless of how much of it Ripple holds.

Summary

Senate Republicans circulated a revised CLARITY Act text shortly before the September 15 cloture vote, expanding the bill from roughly 616 pages to 635. The draft defines an ancillary asset separately as a network token whose value depends on the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of an originator or someone related to the originator. Under the revised language, XRP would be treated as a digital commodity in secondary markets regardless of the quantity Ripple holds, and no provision in the bill causes an ancillary asset to stop being a network token. The revision arrived alongside a reported White House concession on expanded conflict-of-interest rules and state-level enforcement powers, both aimed at securing Democratic votes. The cloture vote on the motion to proceed requires 60 votes, and Republicans hold 53 seats. Legislative text is usually written months before anyone votes on it, which is what makes the last twenty-four hours unusual. Senate Republicans released a revised CLARITY Act draft shortly before Tuesday’s cloture vote, and the bill grew from roughly 616 pages to 635 in the process. Nineteen pages is not a rounding error in a document that has been negotiated since 2025, and the additions are not housekeeping. One of them defines an ancillary asset as a separate category: a network token whose value depends on the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts associated with an originator, or with someone related to the originator. Read plainly, that language classifies XRP as a digital commodity in secondary markets no matter how much XRP Ripple holds on its balance sheet, and the draft specifies that nothing in the bill causes an ancillary asset to stop being a network token. A single definition, inserted overnight, resolving the question that produced a three-year lawsuit. Whoever wrote it knew exactly what they were doing, and the more interesting question is why it needed writing at this hour.

What the new language does Start with the mechanism, because the distinction it draws is the whole point.

American securities law has spent seventy years asking whether an arrangement is an investment contract, which turns on whether buyers expect profits from the efforts of others. Applied to a token, that test produces a problem the courts have never resolved cleanly: the same asset can be a security when sold by its issuer under a promotional arrangement and something else entirely when traded between strangers on an exchange years later.

The 2023 district court ruling in the Ripple case landed exactly there. Programmatic sales on exchanges were held not to be securities transactions. Institutional sales under contract were. Same token, different treatment, depending on the circumstances of the sale.

The revised CLARITY draft appears to codify that split and extend it. By defining an ancillary asset as a category of network token, and specifying that nothing in the bill causes such an asset to cease being a network token, the language fixes the classification to the asset instead of leaving it to be re-litigated per transaction.

And the phrase doing the heavy lifting is the one about quantity. Under the draft, XRP is a crypto commodity in secondary markets regardless of how much XRP Ripple holds. That matters because concentration has been the argument against treating XRP as decentralised enough to escape securities treatment. A company holding a large share of supply, with escrow releases on a schedule, exercising influence over the network’s direction, looks unlike bitcoin and looks somewhat like an issuer. The new language makes that observation irrelevant to the classification question.

Why nineteen pages the night before Bills do not usually grow at this stage, and the fact that this one did tells you something about the vote count.

Cloture on the motion to proceed requires sixty votes. Republicans hold fifty-three, at least two of whom have been expected to defect on general grounds. The arithmetic has required Democratic crossover all year, and the Democrats who spent the summer negotiating walked away in July over the ethics provision.

What appears to have happened is a simultaneous concession on two fronts. Reporting indicates the President agreed to expanded conflict-of-interest rules and, significantly, state-level enforcement powers, which was the specific Democratic objection to the July text. That version assigned sole enforcement to the Justice Department, and Democrats rejected it the same day on the grounds that the department answers to the person the provision restricts.

State attorneys general holding enforcement authority is a materially different proposition. It creates a route that does not run through a presidential appointee, and it is close to the mechanism Democrats were asking for when negotiations collapsed.

So the revised draft is doing two jobs at once. It is buying Democratic votes with the ethics concession, and it is delivering something to the industry side in the same document. That is how a bill gets to a floor vote it was expected to lose, and it explains the timing: concessions negotiated in the final hours produce text released in the final hours.

The question of who asked for it Worth stating carefully, because the honest answer is that nobody can currently attribute the language.

Legislative text emerges from committee staff, leadership offices, agency technical assistance, and outside counsel, and by the time a draft circulates, authorship is diffuse by design. The ancillary asset definition may have been drafted by Banking Committee staff working through a classification problem on the merits. It may have come from technical assistance. It may have arrived through the ordinary lobbying process that every industry runs and that this one runs harder than most.

What is documented is the scale of the industry’s political operation. Our audit of that spending found a super PAC network entering this cycle with a war chest measured in the hundreds of millions, with Ripple among the largest single contributors, and crypto accounting for a substantial share of all corporate election spending. An industry that spends at that level does not do so to observe legislation passively.

None of which establishes that anyone bought a definition. It means that a provision resolving one company’s central legal question, inserted hours before a vote, in a bill that company’s political network spent heavily to advance, is a provision worth asking about. Journalism’s job here is the question, not the accusation, and the answer will emerge from the amendment record and the committee report rather than from speculation.

What it would actually settle If the language survives to enactment, three things change for XRP and they are worth separating from the things that do not.

Secondary market classification becomes statutory. Today XRP’s status in secondary markets rests on a district court ruling from 2023 that was never appealed and has never been tested at the circuit level. That is a considerably weaker foundation than most holders assume. A statutory definition replaces judicial interpretation with text, and text does not get reversed by a different panel reading the same facts.

Concentration stops being an argument. The quantity Ripple holds has been the strongest available case against XRP’s commodity treatment. Removing it forecloses a line of attack rather than winning it.

And institutional participation gets easier. Asset managers, banks, and custodians run legal risk assessments before touching an asset, and an unappealed district court ruling scores worse in that process than a federal statute. Seven asset managers have filed for XRP spot ETFs on the expectation that Congress would resolve this, and the resolution is what several of them are waiting on.

What it does not settle is equally specific. It does not address Ripple’s own sales, which is where the original case was actually lost. It does not create the registration regimes for exchanges and custodians, which require years of agency rulemaking. And it does not reach the SEC’s interpretive framework, which continues to govern everything the statute does not.

The part that should worry XRP holders Here is the uncomfortable half, and it follows directly from the same observation.

If a definition inserted overnight can settle XRP’s classification, a definition removed in the amendment process can unsettle it. The bill has not passed. Tuesday’s vote is cloture on the motion to proceed, which is a vote to begin debating, and debate is where amendments happen.

An amendment process on a 635-page bill with a contested ethics title and an industry with visible fingerprints is not a friendly environment for a provision that plainly benefits one company. Senators looking for something to strike in exchange for a vote will find this language quickly, because it is new, it is specific, and it is attributable to nobody.

So XRP holders reading Tuesday as a resolution should hold that lightly. Cloture succeeding means the bill enters a process in which the most recently added and least defended provisions are the most exposed. The ancillary asset definition is, right now, the newest thing in the document.

There is also the scenario nobody is pricing. Cloture fails, the bill returns in the next Congress, and the definition does not survive the reconstruction, because the political configuration that produced it will not exist in the same form after November.

The precedent for a last-minute definition Provisions inserted at the final hour have a record in American financial legislation, and it is not encouraging for anyone hoping this one is durable.

The pattern is familiar. A long-negotiated bill reaches a procedural vote short of the count. Concessions are traded in the final days. Text is revised, circulated, and voted on before most members or their staff have read it. The provisions added in that window are the ones with the least deliberation behind them, the thinnest legislative record, and the weakest claim to having been considered on their merits.

That matters later in two specific ways.

Courts read legislative history. When an agency writes a rule and someone sues, the question of what Congress intended gets answered partly from committee reports, floor statements, and hearing records. A definition inserted overnight has almost none of that. A judge asked what Congress meant by entrepreneurial or managerial efforts associated with an originator will find the phrase and very little explaining it, which leaves interpretation wide open.

And thin provisions get traded first. In conference, in a second chamber, or in a future amendment cycle, the items removed are the ones nobody has invested political capital defending. A provision with a hearing record, testimony, and a named sponsor has constituency. A phrase that appeared in a revision has none.

There is a reasonable counter. Sometimes late additions are late because they are technical corrections that only became apparent when the full text was assembled, and classification definitions in a 635-page bill genuinely can surface that way. Not every eleventh-hour insertion is a favour.

The distinguishing evidence, when it arrives, is in the record. A definition that appears in the committee report with an explanation of the problem it solves is a technical fix. A definition that appears in the text with no accompanying rationale, resolving a live question for a specific company, is something else, and the report is public when it publishes.

What Tuesday actually decides The vote is narrower than the coverage suggests, and precision here prevents a lot of misreading.

Cloture on the motion to proceed requires sixty votes and determines only whether the Senate begins debate. It is not a vote on the bill, it does not pass anything, and success would leave a second cloture vote, an amendment process, and House concurrence still ahead, with a compressed calendar running into the midterms.

Estimates of eventual passage have diverged sharply. Prediction markets have priced 2026 enactment around twenty percent. Galaxy Digital and the Solana Policy Institute have both assigned roughly ten. Those are different numbers pricing subtly different questions, and none of them is a forecast of Tuesday specifically.

What Tuesday does deliver is information. A roll call produces a list of names, and the names tell you whether the ethics concession worked, which Democrats moved, and whether the coalition exists for a second attempt. Our status page on the bill tracks where it stands, and our read of the merged text covers what the 616-page version contained before this revision.

What the definition means for everything that is not XRP The coverage has framed this as an XRP provision, which is understandable and incomplete. A definition written into statute applies to every asset meeting it, and the drafting language is broad.

A network token whose value depends on the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts associated with an originator describes an enormous share of the market. Almost every token outside bitcoin has an originating entity, a foundation, a development company, or a core team whose work plainly affects the asset’s value. Solana has a foundation and Labs. Cardano has three organisations. Most of the assets in the top fifty would meet that description on any honest reading.

Which means the provision is either much bigger than an XRP fix, or it is narrower than its plain text suggests and the narrowing happens somewhere else in the 635 pages.

Both readings have consequences. If the definition is broad, the bill classifies most of the market as digital commodities in secondary markets, which is close to what the industry has been asking for and would represent the single largest change in American crypto law. If it is narrow, the qualifying conditions sit in provisions nobody has yet read closely, and the XRP-specific reading circulating now is an inference from one clause in a document released hours ago.

The honest position is that nobody outside the drafting rooms currently knows which it is, including the commentators confidently asserting the XRP interpretation. A 635-page bill released the night before a vote has not been read by the people describing it, and that includes everyone writing about it today.

What can be said is that if the broad reading holds, the ancillary asset definition is the most consequential provision in the bill and is being discussed as a footnote about one token. That would not be the first time a classification definition turned out to matter more than the titles around it.

Why the quantity language is the tell Of everything in the new text, one phrase deserves more attention than it has received, and it is the clause about how much the originator holds.

Specifying that an asset qualifies regardless of the quantity the originator holds is not how definitions normally work. A classification usually states what something is. This one states what something is and then pre-emptively forecloses a specific counterargument.

Drafters do that when they know the counterargument is coming and they know who will make it. Supply concentration is the central objection to treating any originator-linked token as sufficiently decentralised, it has been made repeatedly in enforcement actions and in academic commentary, and it is the strongest available argument against the treatment this provision grants.

So the clause is defensive drafting, and defensive drafting is evidence about the drafter’s expectations rather than about the merits. Someone anticipated that an agency, a court, or a future Congress would point at holdings and say the originator’s influence is too large for commodity treatment. The language removes that move in advance.

Whether that is good policy is a real question with arguments on both sides. Fixing classification to the asset produces certainty, and certainty is what markets have been asking for. It also means a token held overwhelmingly by its creator, with releases on a schedule controlled by that creator, receives the same treatment as an asset with no controlling entity at all, which is a substantive policy choice presented as a definitional one.

The reason to flag it is that definitional provisions attract far less scrutiny than substantive ones during a markup, and this is a substantive choice wearing a definition’s clothes. Anyone tracking the amendment process should watch this clause specifically, because it is the part that does the work.

How to read Tuesday if you hold XRP Practical, because the token has a documented history of reacting to this exact category of news and then giving the move back.

In May, XRP rose above $1.50 after the Senate Banking Committee advanced the bill 15-9, then retraced to around $1.40 as early buyers took profit. In July, it climbed roughly 3.5% intraday, from about $1.11 to $1.1511, after the President agreed to the ethics provision that had been blocking negotiations, finishing third among the top fifty gainers with roughly $2.93 million of leveraged shorts liquidated on the way up.

Both moves faded.

The reason both faded is the same and it is worth stating bluntly: neither event changed XRP’s legal position. A committee vote and a White House concession are steps toward a law. The day after each, the token stood exactly where it had stood the day before, with the same district court ruling as its foundation and the same absence of statute behind it.

A cloture vote is the same category of event. Succeeding means debate begins. It does not classify anything, it does not bind any agency, and it does not remove the appellate exposure sitting under the 2023 ruling.

Which produces a specific instruction for anyone trading this. The move that matters is not the vote, it is enactment, and enactment is at minimum a second cloture vote, an amendment process, and House concurrence away, into a calendar running toward the midterms. Estimates of that happening in 2026 sit between ten and twenty percent depending on whose model you use.

XRP trades around $1.40, up roughly 4% in a day, against a July 2025 high of $3.65. Some portion of that recent strength is the market pricing a favourable outcome for the third time this year. The first two times, the pricing was wrong not because the direction was wrong but because the event was smaller than the reaction.

What to watch Whether the ancillary asset language survives markup. The newest provision in a contested bill is the most exposed, and its presence in the final text is a different question from its presence today.

The roll call, not the result. Which Democrats voted yes is the list that determines whether a second attempt is viable and what it costs.

Whether the state enforcement concession is real. Reporting indicates the President agreed to it. What appears in the text, and how it is bounded, is the test of whether the concession was substantive or nominal.

XRP’s reaction against its own history. The token has rallied on procedural CLARITY news twice this year, in May after the committee vote and in July after the ethics agreement, and gave both moves back because neither changed its legal status. A third such move would be the market repeating a mistake it has already made twice.

The appellate question underneath. Whatever happens to the bill, the 2023 district court ruling remains untested at the circuit level. Legislation is the only thing that removes that exposure, which is precisely why this vote matters more to XRP than to most assets.

Frequently Asked Questions What is an ancillary asset under the CLARITY Act? The revised draft defines it separately as a network token whose value depends on the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts associated with an originator or a person related to the originator. The draft also specifies that no provision in the legislation causes an ancillary asset to stop being a network token, which fixes the classification to the asset instead of leaving it to be determined transaction by transaction.

How does it affect XRP? Under the revised language, XRP would be treated as a crypto commodity in secondary markets regardless of how much XRP Ripple holds. Concentration of supply has been the strongest argument against commodity treatment, and the provision removes it from the classification question entirely.

When was this added? Senate Republicans circulated the revised text shortly before the September 15 cloture vote, expanding the bill from roughly 616 pages to 635. Nineteen pages of additions in the final hours before a procedural vote is unusual for legislation negotiated over more than a year.

Why was it added now? The revision appears to accompany a reported White House concession on expanded conflict-of-interest rules and state-level enforcement powers, which were the specific Democratic objections to the July ethics text. Concessions negotiated in final hours produce text released in final hours, and the bill needs at least seven Democratic votes to reach sixty.

Does this mean XRP’s legal status is settled? No. The bill has not passed. Tuesday’s vote is cloture on the motion to proceed, meaning a vote on whether to begin debating, and debate is where amendments happen. A provision added overnight, benefiting one company, in a bill with a contested ethics title, is among the most exposed items in the text.

What does XRP rely on today? A 2023 district court ruling holding that programmatic sales on exchanges were not securities transactions. That decision was never appealed and has never been tested at the circuit level, which is a weaker foundation than many holders assume. Statutory language is what would remove that exposure.

What happens if the cloture vote fails? The bill does not advance, leadership decides whether to refile or move on, and market structure legislation likely slips past the midterms. XRP’s classification would continue to rest on the district court ruling and on the joint SEC-CFTC interpretive framework, which is agency policy a future commission can withdraw.

Should XRP holders expect a price move? The token has rallied on procedural CLARITY developments twice this year and given both moves back, because a committee vote and a White House concession are steps toward a law and not a law. A cloture vote is the same category of event. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. It describes draft legislation that has not passed and whose provisions may change or be removed, and nothing here alleges improper conduct by any party. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of September 15, 2026.

XRP exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have sustained robust inflows, significantly outpacing Bitcoin funds over the past several weeks, despite stagnant price movement for the underlying token. In late August, XRP ETFs attracted $110.49 million, marking their strongest inflow week in 2026 so far and boosting cumulative net inflows to an estimated $1.66 billion.

ETF inflows diverge as spot prices stagnateRecent data indicate a stark contrast between institutional demand for XRP and the performance of its spot market. While the price of XRP has hovered between $1.35 and $1.40, exchange data show ETFs have continued to draw new investment. On September 10, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs experienced $282.6 million in outflows, the third consecutive session marked by sizeable withdrawals. In the same period, XRP funds saw inflows of $5.1 million, extending a multi-session streak of positive momentum.

Coinpaper reported that XRP ETFs pulled in $19 million during a week when Bitcoin funds lost $449 million. In another round of trading, XRP ETFs added $14.38 million, while Bitcoin funds lost $236.5 million. This trend has persisted through several market sessions.

XRP ETFs continued to gain new assets even as the underlying token’s price met resistance around $1.36, while Bitcoin investment products lost hundreds of millions in the same period.

This divergence has underscored increased attention to XRP’s supply and demand dynamics within institutional products.

Institutional accumulation and supply dynamicsCurrent estimates show the seven U.S. spot XRP ETFs collectively hold approximately 1.1 billion XRP, or about 1.13% of the total existing token supply. The combined value of these holdings is roughly $2 billion. Continued accumulation by ETFs means a larger portion of XRP sits within institutional investment vehicles instead of circulating freely on exchanges.

Despite the surge in ETF demand, XRP’s price has not reflected a similar bullish momentum. The token has struggled to move decisively above $1.40, and ETF accumulation has not yet triggered a major spot market rally.

Experts point to several factors limiting a stronger uptrend, including ongoing profit-taking, liquidity in exchange markets, and persistent risk aversion among crypto investors.

Bitcoin faces similar headwinds, currently trading below $80,000 as investors anticipate the next Federal Reserve decision and adjust to high inflation and interest-rate expectations.

Reuters analysts emphasize that while structural institutional demand for Bitcoin is increasing, broader macroeconomic risks continue to weigh on both leading cryptocurrencies.

Mini dictionary: ETF (Exchange-Traded Fund), an investment vehicle that tracks the price of an underlying asset or basket of assets and is traded on stock exchanges. In the context of cryptocurrencies, ETFs offer investors regulated exposure to digital assets without requiring direct token ownership.

Technical levels and market outlookThe $1.40 mark has emerged as an important technical level for XRP. A sustained move above this price would signal strengthening spot-market demand and suggest that institutional accumulation is impacting the broader market.

AssetETF Weekly InflowSpot PriceRecent Net ETF FlowsXRP$110.49 million$1.35–$1.40+$14.38 millionBitcoin-$449 millionUnder $80,000-$236.5 millionIf this resistance becomes support, market participants may set their sights on higher targets, such as $1.60 and later $2. However, should XRP drop below $1.30 despite ongoing ETF inflows, it would indicate that institutional accumulation is not sufficient to offset continued selling pressure.

A broader improvement in cryptocurrency sentiment may be required for XRP to break out of its current range. Market participants are also monitoring the CLARITY Act vote, which may add further volatility. Recent trading has seen XRP maintain its stance near $1.40 ahead of the Senate’s procedural assessment.

Institutional demand for XRP has remained strong through ETF products, even as price action stalls and the macro environment adds uncertainty.

TLDR Firelight plans to use deposited FXRP as collateral to back DeFi coverage, letting XRP holders earn premiums as yield. Withdrawal times could stretch from today’s 1-2 days to roughly 30-60 days once 30-day coverage periods begin. Rewards stop the moment a holder starts unstaking, even though the exit process can take weeks to finish. A claim tied to an earlier coverage period can still lower the amount of FXRP a holder receives back. Firelight has attracted about $72 million in deposits, but it’s unclear how much paid coverage it has actually sold. Firelight, a protocol built on the Flare network, is preparing a system that lets XRP holders earn yield by backing coverage for DeFi users. Holders deposit an XRP-linked asset and get paid when customers buy protection.

But the plan comes with a tradeoff. Getting that money back out could take far longer than it does today.

How The Vault Works Holders deposit FXRP, an XRP-linked asset on Flare, into a Firelight vault. In return, they receive stXRP, a token that represents their position in the vault.

In the next phase of the protocol, Firelight plans to use that deposited FXRP as collateral to back coverage sold to DeFi protocols. Customers who buy this protection pay premiums, and that money becomes income for the people supplying the collateral.

Right now, Firelight uses one-day coverage periods. That keeps withdrawal times short, at about one to two days.

Once the protocol moves to 30-day coverage periods, the same process will stretch withdrawal times out. A holder who exits near the end of a period could wait just over 30 days. Someone who exits near the start of a period could wait closer to 60 days.

Firelight has not confirmed an exact launch date for this next phase. A funding announcement from September 1 pointed to a September rollout of the protocol and its first coverage deals, without naming a specific day.

What Happens During The Wait Once a holder starts the unstaking process, rewards stop right away. The stXRP is redeemed at that moment, and its value is recorded.

But the FXRP is not free of risk yet. For the rest of that coverage period, it still backs active coverage and can be reduced if a claim occurs.

After that period ends, the FXRP no longer backs new coverage. However, a claim tied to an earlier period can still lower the final amount the holder receives.

That means the value recorded when a holder begins unstaking is not a guarantee. The final payout can end up lower than expected.

After the waiting period ends, holders must submit a separate transaction to withdraw their funds. Until they do, the assets stay in the vault.

Firelight has already attracted a large amount of deposits ahead of this change. DefiLlama recorded $71.74 million in total value locked in a September 13 snapshot.

That figure reflects deposits only. It does not show how much coverage Firelight has actually sold or how much premium income it has collected so far.

To limit losses for depositors, Firelight has a separate reserve called the First-Loss Buffer. This stablecoin reserve pays out validated claims first, before any loss reaches staked FXRP.

If a loss is larger than the buffer, the remaining amount is spread across vault positions. Holders would then keep the same number of shares, but each share would be worth less FXRP.

Firelight also limits how much coverage it can sell based on how much capital is available to cover losses. The protocol is designed to stop offering new coverage if that ratio drops too low.

For now, XRP holders have shown willingness to deposit collateral. Whether the coverage business can generate enough paid premiums to make the yield worth the wait and the risk remains to be seen.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking forfeiture of more than $61 million in Tether’s USDT stablecoin, alleging the funds came from black-market sales of sanctioned Iranian oil and were intended to finance Iran’s government and military, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). 

On Monday, the DOJ alleged that Blessed Trust and Hexa Whale, both incorporated in Hong Kong, used Binance accounts to move proceeds from oil sold to buyers in China. A network of related addresses allegedly received and distributed more than $1.5 billion, including transfers to IRGC-linked money-transfer businesses, cryptocurrency addresses and an Iranian exchange.

A Binance spokesperson told Cointelegraph that Binance did not permit transactions with sanctioned individuals and would continue cooperating with law enforcement, including by investigating, restricting or freezing accounts where appropriate. The spokesperson said the case was not filed against the exchange and did not allege wrongdoing by Binance. 

The filing comes as Washington expands financial pressure on Tehran and the US-Israeli war with Iran disrupts energy infrastructure and oil shipments across the Middle East. Oil prices rose on Tuesday following attacks on Saudi infrastructure and continued reductions in vessel traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Tether freezes $61 million in USDTAccording to the complaint, Tether froze about 61.19 million USDT across 10 addresses on the Tron network in 2025. It said a seizure warrant authorizes the FBI to take custody of the assets by having Tether destroy the frozen tokens and issue replacements of equal value to be transferred to an FBI-controlled hardware wallet.

Cointelegraph contacted Tether for comment but had not received a response by publication.

The DOJ said the allegations contained in the civil forfeiture complaint had not been proven. The US would obtain permanent ownership of the assets only if a court enters a forfeiture judgment in the government’s favor.

The enforcement action also follows the US Treasury’s August expansion of its Iran sanctions framework to cover the country’s digital asset sector. The measure allows US authorities to target foreign individuals and companies operating in or supporting the sector.

At the time, the Treasury alleged that UAE-based broker Ivan Obukhov had processed more than $100 million in crypto payments since 2023 to facilitate Iranian oil sales for the IRGC’s Quds Force.

Recent: CoinEx to cease operation after 9 years, citing ‘significant’ crypto contraction

Iran conflict pushes oil prices higher The war between the US and Israel and Iran, which began in February, continues to disrupt oil shipments through the Middle East.

Reuters reported on Tuesday that Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline remained offline after Friday attacks that Riyadh blamed on Iran-backed fighters in Iraq, while Iran-backed Houthi forces launched separate missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia on Monday.

At the time of writing, market data showed Brent crude trading at about $107.59 per barrel, up 1.81%, while US West Texas Intermediate traded at roughly $103.35, up 1.93%.

Magazine: Why are AI’s biggest companies suddenly asking to slow down?

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

Stellar’s native cryptocurrency XLM surged nearly 6% in the past 24 hours, reaching approximately $0.193 on September 15. This price rally comes as participants anticipate the mainnet upgrade vote for Stellar’s Protocol 28, set to take place on September 16 at 17:00 UTC.

Upgrade anticipation drives XLM momentumAccording to CoinGecko, XLM is up 5.8% in the past 24 hours and 9.1% over the last two weeks, fluctuating between $0.182 and $0.197 before settling near $0.193. The current movement coincides with heightened attention on Stellar, a blockchain network designed to facilitate cross-border payments and asset tokenization.

Tomorrow’s Protocol 28 mainnet upgrade vote is a focal point for network participants. The Stellar Development Foundation, the nonprofit overseeing technical development for the blockchain, advanced preparations with a testnet upgrade completed on August 27.

The Protocol 28 upgrade, codenamed Adapter, brings several technical changes to Stellar Core and expands Soroban smart contract capabilities. CAP-83 introduces a mechanism allowing validators to cast votes ahead of receiving the complete transaction set, which can help drop invalid or delayed sets. CAP-85 and CAP-86 target smart contract enhancements, such as enabling upgrades and modifying data structures.

Mini dictionary: Soroban, Stellar’s smart contract platform designed for scalability and developer flexibility, supports WebAssembly-based contracts and aims to expand decentralized application support on the Stellar network.

The expected upgrade has become the primary event driving XLM’s current price movement.

Institutional partnerships and product launches boost sentimentXLM has benefited from institutional partnerships and infrastructure upgrades. MoneyGram recently extended its stablecoin-backed Visa card service to Colombia, allowing eligible users to hold a stable-dollar balance and spend it at merchants that accept Visa. This product, developed in collaboration with Rain and Crossmint wallet technology, relies on the Stellar network and initially supports USDC, with plans to add the MGUSD stablecoin.

MoneyGram and the Stellar Development Foundation have collaborated since 2021 on services enabling cash-to-USDC and USDC-to-cash conversions, with the new card further leveraging Stellar’s payments infrastructure.

Just days prior, US Bank—a leading American financial institution—executed its first pilot transaction using its proprietary dollar-backed stablecoin, USBDC, over the Stellar network. The transfer moved funds between the bank’s North American and European entities and tested the stablecoin’s full operational cycle, including minting, payment, redemption, freezing, and clawback.

US Bank and the Stellar Development Foundation indicated they plan to evaluate additional applications such as liquidity management, collateral mobility, and cross-border treasury operations.

Mini dictionary: US Bank, based in the United States, is one of the country’s largest commercial banks and has recently developed USBDC, a proprietary dollar-backed stablecoin designed for enterprise-grade financial transactions.

XLM price technical levels and on-chain signalsOn the daily chart, XLM has rebounded from August lows near $0.15-$0.16 and is now approaching the $0.20 resistance zone. Moving past this level would bring July targets of $0.205–$0.21 into focus, while further upside could test $0.22, a previous area of selling interest.

Price LevelTypeStatus$0.20ResistanceImmediate target$0.205–$0.21ResistanceNext upside area$0.185SupportFirst downside$0.16SupportAugust baseTechnical indicators signal growing bullish momentum. The Vortex Indicator shows buyers have taken control, with VI+ at 1.1331 and VI- at 0.8630. The Money Flow Index, now at 60, reflects increased buying pressure without entering overbought conditions seen during XLM’s June rally.

Shorter-term charts reveal a sequence of higher lows and stronger buying activity as XLM crossed $0.185 and tested $0.195. The Percentage Price Oscillator stands at 1.68%, above its signal line at 0.81%, while the Bull Bear Power indicator remains positive at 0.0108.

Momentum is expected to continue if XLM secures a daily or 4-hour close above $0.20, supporting further attempts toward $0.205 or $0.21. If the price is rejected below $0.20, $0.185 and then $0.175–$0.18 will be key levels to watch for potential support.

A reversal under $0.175 would negate the recent pattern of higher lows, putting the August support region back into play. Price action around the Protocol 28 vote is expected to play a pivotal role in dictating short-term direction for XLM.

The Lisk Chain shuts down on 31 October 2026. If you hold anything on it, you need to withdraw it to Ethereum before that date.

Action required: withdraw all assets from Lisk Chain by 31 October 2026. If you hold LSK, ETH, stablecoins, bridged tokens, DeFi positions, or anything else on Lisk Chain, withdraw it to Ethereum as soon as possible. After 31 October there is no way to withdraw or recover assets left on the Chain.

This post covers who needs to act and how to withdraw each type of asset, step by step.

Quick answer Withdraw all assets from Lisk Chain to Ethereum by 31 October 2026. This applies to every asset, not just LSK. Staked LSK must be unlocked and unstaked first. The emergency unlock penalty has been waived. Unstaking adds a 3-day waiting period. Bridging from Lisk Chain to Ethereum takes around 8 days. Allow at least 11 days in total if you are staking. We recommend starting immediately. LSK already on Ethereum or on an exchange needs no action. Who needs to act Where your assets are What to do LSK on Ethereum or on an exchange No action required. LSK, ETH or stablecoins in a wallet on Lisk Chain Bridge them to Ethereum. Start as soon as possible, at least 8 days before 31 October. Staked LSK Unlock and unstake, wait 3 days, then bridge. Start as soon as possible, at least 11 days before 31 October. DeFi positions on Lisk Chain Close the position, then bridge the assets. Start early. Some protocols may have their own timelines. If you are not sure what you hold on Lisk Chain, search each wallet address you use on a Lisk Chain block explorer and check the token balances and contract interactions listed there.

How to withdraw staked LSK Staked LSK does not return to your wallet on its own. You have to unlock and unstake it. The emergency unlock penalty has been waived following the passing of the Lisk DAO proposal, so there is no cost to unstaking now, only a 3-day waiting period.

Go to the Lisk Portal and connect your wallet. Unlock and unstake your LSK. There is no penalty. Wait 3 days. Your LSK is released back to your wallet on Lisk Chain. Bridge it to Ethereum using the steps in the next section. Unstaking and bridging take around 11 days together, so anything started in the final days of October may not complete in time. We recommend starting immediately.

How to bridge LSK, ETH and stablecoins to Ethereum All withdrawals from Lisk Chain go through a bridge to Ethereum. Use bridge.lisk.com. It is the only bridge that still works, so do not rely on any other route.

It follows the standard Ethereum L2 withdrawal, which runs in three steps over around 8 days.

On the bridge, connect your wallet, set the route from Lisk to Ethereum, select the asset and the amount, and confirm the withdrawal. About an hour later, return to the bridge and submit the "prove" transaction on Ethereum. The 7-day countdown starts at this step, not the first one, so do not skip it. After the 7-day challenge period, submit the final transaction to claim your assets on Ethereum. You will need a small amount of ETH on Ethereum to pay for the prove and claim transactions. Repeat the process for each asset you hold.

How to withdraw DeFi positions Assets inside a liquidity pool, a lending market or a vault cannot be bridged directly. Withdraw from the protocol first so the underlying tokens are back in your wallet, then bridge each token as described above.

Check the protocol's own announcements too. Some projects on Lisk Chain are migrating to Celo and may set their own deadlines for closing positions. Those deadlines may fall before 31 October.

Timing, in plain terms Unlocking and unstaking takes 3 days. Bridging takes around 8. Together that is around 11 days, assuming every step goes through on the first attempt.

The chain closes on 31 October 2026. A withdrawal that is still in its 7-day challenge period when the chain closes may not complete. We recommend starting immediately, not in the final weeks.

After 31 October Once Lisk Chain shuts down, the bridge to Ethereum closes with it. Assets left on the chain at that point become inaccessible. There is no recovery process, no claim window and no support route that can restore them afterwards.

Where to get help LSK Token FAQ Lisk Chain Closure FAQ DAO Cessation FAQ We will post reminders on our official channels until the shutdown.

Start your withdrawal now Unstaking and bridging take around 11 days together. Anything started in the final days of October may not complete in time.

Open the bridge

Aave has recorded $27.4 billion in average total value locked during August as active loans climbed to $11.7 billion and its share of tracked on-chain lending reached 47.8%.

Summary

Aave’s August TVL rose 13.7% monthly to $27.4 billion, while active loans reached $11.7 billion. Aave held 47.8% of tracked lending loans, extending its market-share recovery for a second month. V4 TVL averaged $442.3 million, rising 53.4%, while active loans increased 62.9% during August overall. GHO market capitalization reached $661.6 million, its fourteenth consecutive monthly increase and record average level. Monthly active users fell 3.8% to 68,900, extending declines for a fourth consecutive month overall. Token Terminal’sAugust 2026 Aave report showed TVL rising 13.7% from July, while active loans increased 12.9%. Both metrics advanced for a second straight month and reached their highest monthly averages since April. The figures remain well below year-earlier levels, with TVL down 57.6% and active loans down 56.9% year over year.

The same report put August fees at $33.9 million, up 15.2% month over month, while DAO revenue rose 9.2% to $4.9 million. Interest produced $33.3 million, or 98.2% of fees, as outstanding borrowing increased across Aave markets.

Aave lending activity recovered faster than the tracked market Aave’s $11.7 billion active-loan balance represented 47.8% of the lending sector tracked by Token Terminal. Its market share increased 1.2 percentage points from July after reaching 45.5% in June. The tracked sector’s loan book expanded from $22.2 billion to $24.4 billion during August, with Aave growing 12.9% against 7.5% for the rest of the group.

Ethereum remained Aave’s main capital base, accounting for $22.9 billion, or 83.5%, of average August TVL. Ethereum active loans reached $9.6 billion, equal to 82.4% of the protocol total. Plasma ranked second by borrowing volume at $797.6 million, followed by Base at $328.2 million and Arbitrum at $316.6 million.

Borrowing was concentrated in WETH and stablecoins. Token Terminal put WETH loans at $4.1 billion, or 35.3% of outstanding debt. USDT carried $2.7 billion and USDC $2.6 billion, while USDe and USDT0 contributed $732.6 million and $702.8 million, respectively.

The rise in loans fed directly into protocol income. USDC generated $9.6 million of August fees, USDT produced $9.4 million and WETH contributed $7.9 million. The DAO retained $4.9 million in total revenue, with WETH markets accounting for $1.3 million.

Aave V4 grew faster as new lending routes went live Aave V4 recorded average TVL of $442.3 million in August, up 53.4% from July. Average active loans increased faster, climbing 62.9% to $154.9 million. Token Terminal’s core V4 figures cover Ethereum and Avalanche and exclude the dedicated Ether.fi Cash instance on OP Mainnet.

Aave Labs reported a different point-in-time measure in its August development update, saying V4 deposits surpassed $800 million during the month and active loans reached a record. The figures are not directly comparable with Token Terminal’s $442.3 million monthly-average TVL because the measurement dates and included deployments differ.

By month-end, Token Terminal measured $567.4 million in deposits across the V4 deployments covered by its core series. USDG and weETH each held around $90 million, followed by WETH at $77.2 million, WBTC at $50.9 million and wstETH at $44.3 million.

Growth accelerated after Ether.fi moved its Cash borrowing backend to a dedicated Aave V4 instance on Optimism. Deposits on that separate instance increased from $17.5 million on Aug. 14 to $237.1 million by month-end, according to Token Terminal.

Ether.fi’s updated financial app uses an Aave market on Optimism to support borrowing against customers’ portfolios. The integration lets eligible users obtain stablecoin loans against supported collateral while retaining their underlying assets.

V4’s expansion continued beyond Optimism. Crypto.news reported Aave V4’s first deployment outside Ethereum on Avalanche in July, while a later report showed V4 deposits crossing $806 million during August.

Aave Labs said it is continuing work to support Coinbase Tokenized Stocks through a planned V4 deployment on Base. Crypto.news reported the launch of Coinbase’s tokenized stocks on Base on Aug. 24, covering Apple, Nvidia, Meta and Alphabet products for eligible non-U.S. investors.

Horizon and GHO extended Aave’s growth beyond V3 lending Aave Horizon, the protocol’s market for loans backed by tokenized real-world assets, averaged $371.6 million in TVL during August. The figure rose 6.1% from July and 1,456.2% from its first month a year earlier. Average Horizon active loans stood at $115.3 million.

RLUSD was the largest supplied asset on Horizon at $161.7 million, while USTB accounted for $66.3 million and GHO $59.9 million. RLUSD dominated borrowing with $84.5 million in active debt, followed by $27.8 million in GHO.

The market’s collateral pipeline remains active in September. A Securitize proposal seeks to add HINC, a tokenized high-yield fund sub-advised by Neuberger Berman, as supply-only Horizon collateral with USDC, GHO and RLUSD available for borrowing. A separate Midas and Wellington-linked mWIN proposal remains in Aave governance.

Securitize’s HINC launch with Neuberger Berman, describing a portfolio centered on high-yield bonds alongside CLOs and leveraged loans.

GHO reached an average market capitalization of $661.6 million in August, rising 13.1% monthly and 154.7% from a year earlier. Token Terminal said the stablecoin has now grown for 14 consecutive months.

GHO governance has since moved borrowing and savings rates higher. TokenLogic’s August GHO rate update raises the Ethereum Core borrowing rate from 3.75% to 4.25% in two stages and lifts the Aave Savings Rate paid to sGHO from 4.25% to 4.50%. The proposal estimated the extra savings cost at roughly $397,000 annually based on 158.6 million GHO then deposited in sGHO.

User activity fell while Aave expanded distribution Capital growth did not extend to wallet activity. Token Terminal recorded 68,900 monthly active users in August, down 3.8% from July and 35% from a year earlier. User activity fell for a fourth consecutive month to its lowest monthly average since February 2024.

Base had the largest share of users at 21,200, narrowly ahead of Ethereum at 21,000. Ethereum still held more than four-fifths of Aave’s capital, leaving the protocol’s user distribution much less concentrated than its TVL.

Aave has been expanding its consumer distribution while wallet counts decline. Aave App opened early access on iOS on Aug. 26 through its Ghost Pass referral program, with access scheduled to expand in batches. Android and web users remain on a waitlist.

Aave Labs’ September development priorities include continued work on Coinbase Tokenized Stocks, Stable Vaults, GHO and the Aave App. Its governance forum is meanwhile considering activation of V4 Risk Stewards on Ethereum and Avalanche, which would give delegated risk managers limited authority to change specified Hub, Spoke and oracle parameters within governance-set caps and cooldown periods.

Disclosure: This content is provided by a third party. Neither crypto.news nor the author of this article endorses any product mentioned on this page. Users should conduct their own research before taking any action related to the company.

An Ethereum wallet holding leveraged rsETH has lost around $7.8 million after an attacker exploited a custom Safe module linked to a Uniswap v4 liquidity pool. The incident happened on September 15, 2026, but security researchers said the attack did not come from a flaw in Kelp DAO’s core rsETH contracts.

Here’s how the exploit actually happen.

Custom Safe Module Exposed Wallet to AttackBlockchain security firm Blockaid identified the attack and traced it to a custom Uniswap v4 LP Safe module used by the affected Gnosis Safe wallet.

The wallet at 0x40E93…7AbA8 held about $7.73 million worth of rsETH before the attack.

🚨Blockaid exploit detection system detected an exploit on an unidentified user's Safe on Ethereum.
~$7.73M confirmed rsETH loss so far.
An attacker used a public keeper multicall to drive a custom Uni V4 LP Safe module into an attacker-created hooked pool; the hook unwrapped…

— Blockaid (@blockaid_) September 15, 2026 According to the security analysis, the module had a public entry point that accepted caller-controlled data and used DELEGATECALL without proper access checks. 

Because the module was already authorized by the Safe, an outside attacker could use that entrypoint to execute code inside the wallet’s own context.

This gave the attacker control over the wallet’s assets.

How rsETH Exploit Happen?The attacker first used a public keeper multicall function to redirect the wallet’s custom Uniswap v4 Safe module toward a malicious Hook pool.

The module then unpacked the wallet’s aEthrsETH, an Aave-wrapped version of restaked ETH, into raw rsETH. The attacker attempted to extract those tokens through the malicious pool.

Perhaps, the original attacker did not get the stolen funds.

Why!

Because the attacker’s transaction entered Ethereum’s mempool, where an MEV bot known as “yoink” detected and front-ran the transaction and captured the entire roughly $7.8 million worth of rsETH for itself.

Can Kelp just withdraw the $7.8M from rsETH?Not necessarily. As rsETH is a liquid restaking token. The fact that the wallet held $7.8M worth of rsETH does not mean Kelp DAO has a $7.8M pile of the same tokens that it can simply take back.

If the stolen rsETH remains in an address controlled by Yoink, recovery would generally require freezing, blacklisting, recovering, or otherwise restricting those assets, if the token’s design and applicable controls allow it.

Kelp DAO Says Core rsETH Contracts Are SafeMeanwhile Kelp DAO team has responded by temporarily pausing rsETH transfers for 24 hours to isolate the affected funds.

We've detected potential suspicious activity on an the address (0xc70f00cd7e461686b04b0e912e309beca8b80ea0) that received rsETH a few hours ago.

Out of an abundance of caution, we've placed that address under a temporary 24-hour pause. During this window, rsETH cannot move in…

— Kelp (@KelpDAO) September 15, 2026 The team said its core smart contracts remained secure and that the rsETH pool was fully collateralized. Normal minting, redemptions, and other DeFi integrations continued to operate.

Story Ends Here

Trust with CoinPedia:CoinPedia has been delivering accurate and timely cryptocurrency and blockchain updates since 2017. All content is created by our expert panel of analysts and journalists, following strict Editorial Guidelines based on E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). Every article is fact-checked against reputable sources to ensure accuracy, transparency, and reliability. Our review policy guarantees unbiased evaluations when recommending exchanges, platforms, or tools. We strive to provide timely updates about everything crypto & blockchain, right from startups to industry majors.

Investment Disclaimer:All opinions and insights shared represent the author's own views on current market conditions. Please do your own research before making investment decisions. Neither the writer nor the publication assumes responsibility for your financial choices.

Sponsored and Advertisements:Sponsored content and affiliate links may appear on our site. Advertisements are marked clearly, and our editorial content remains entirely independent from our ad partners.

Read the Next News

Solana just flipped the switch on one of its most consequential upgrades in recent memory. Transaction V1 went live on mainnet at epoch 1035, roughly 01:20 UTC on September 15, expanding the maximum transaction size from 1,232 bytes to 4,096 bytes.

That 3.3x increase might sound like a modest plumbing fix, but it fundamentally changes what developers can accomplish in a single on-chain operation. Zero-knowledge proofs, large multisig configurations, and confidential transfers that previously required awkward workarounds can now execute atomically, in one shot.

Why 1,232 bytes was the ceiling for so long The original transaction size limit wasn’t arbitrary. It was tied to IPv6 Maximum Transmission Unit constraints and QUIC packet limits, the kind of low-level networking decision that gets made early and then quietly dictates what’s possible for years.

The upgrade was driven by two Solana Improvement Documents, SIMD-0296 and SIMD-0385, which together introduced both the expanded size and a new message format. Implementation was led by Anza and coordinated by the Solana Foundation, with engineers Jacob Creech and Andrew Fitzgerald among the key contributors.

The rollout followed a careful phased approach. Local testing began in August 2026, testnet activation landed on September 1 at epoch 1025, and mainnet followed two weeks later.

What changes and what doesn’t The v1 format is opt-in for transaction senders. Legacy and v0 transaction formats remain fully supported and unchanged, so existing applications won’t break overnight.

Infrastructure providers are a different story. RPC providers and indexers need to update their systems to handle the new transaction configuration characteristics, including adjustments for compute limits and priority fees. The Solana Foundation has flagged these as breaking changes for infrastructure, which means wallets, block explorers, and analytics platforms that haven’t prepared will need to catch up.

What 4,096 bytes actually unlocks Zero-knowledge proofs are perhaps the most significant beneficiary. ZK proof systems often require substantial data payloads, and cramming them into 1,232-byte transactions meant either splitting proofs across multiple transactions or relying on off-chain computation with on-chain verification that itself was size-constrained.

Large multisig setups also benefit directly. A multisig wallet with dozens of signers can now fit all necessary signature data into a single transaction rather than requiring multiple rounds of on-chain interaction.

Confidential transfers similarly gain from the expanded envelope. The cryptographic overhead of privacy-preserving transfers tends to be data-heavy, and the old limit frequently forced compromises.

For DeFi protocols specifically, the ability to pack more logic into one atomic transaction reduces the risk of partial execution failures, which matters when a complex swap, collateral adjustment, and liquidation check all need to happen together.

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

Crypto exchange CoinEx has announced an orderly wind-down of its business after 9 years. The platform will halt new user registrations on Tuesday and phase out its services from there.

The closure adds to a run of crypto shutdowns in 2026 covering wallets, DeFi protocols, NFT platforms, and more, pointing to pressure that spans the sector rather than a single corner of it.

What Pushed CoinEx Toward the ExitCoinEx blamed a prolonged market downturn, shrinking industry trading volume and liquidity, and compliance costs, it says, have passed reasonable limits.

“After prudent evaluation, and in light of the prolonged downturn in the cryptocurrency market, the significant contraction in overall industry trading volume and liquidity, and the continuously rising regulatory requirements across major jurisdictions, as well as compliance costs and operational uncertainties that have exceeded reasonable boundaries, CoinEx has decided to cease operations and enter into an orderly cessation process,” the announcement reads.

The closure caps a retreat from regulated markets. CoinEx left the United States in 2023 after a settlement with New York Attorney General Letitia James.

That agreement returned more than $1.1 million to New York investors and added over $600,000 in state penalties. The exchange was also barred from making its platform available in the state.

Meanwhile, its peers cited similar pressure this year. AscendEX stopped operating on July 1, pointing to its lack of authorization under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) and a failed liquidity deal. BitMEX closes on September 23, ending an 11-year run after a strategic review.

What Users Have to Do Before December 22The exchange notified users that futures contracts entered reduce-only mode on Tuesday. Fiat, margin, loans, Earn, staking, and strategic trading stopped accepting new orders the same day.

All non-spot services end on September 22. Spot trading closes on September 29, along with CoinEx Smart Chain (CSC) and the decentralized exchange OneSwap.

Withdrawals remain open until December 22, and CoinEx says its reserve ratio exceeds 100%, with all user balances fully backed. 

CoinEx will also repurchase every remaining CoinEx Token (CET) at 0.005 USDT, with no quantity cap. CET traded at $0.00466 on Tuesday, leaving the buyback slightly above market.

Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens

CoinEx Token (CET) Price Performance. Source: BeInCrypto MarketsAssets left behind carry a cost. Unwithdrawn USDT moves into independent custody and accrues a monthly fee worth 5% of the recorded balance. Claims can be filed until August 22, 2028.

CoinEx Wallet and CoinEx Vault operate independently and remain live. Whether users clear their balances in time will decide how cleanly this exit lands.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights

Lock, Vote, Earn@worldlibertyfi has published a governance proposal that would pay $WLFI holders to participate directly in protocol decisions. Under the plan, holders must lock their unlocked $WLFI tokens on-chain for a minimum of 180 days and cast at least one direct governance vote every 90 days to qualify for rewards. Delegated votes would not count toward eligibility.

Rewards are not fixed. They scale with the size of the reward pool and the amount of $WLFI staked against it. That structure is designed to curb outsized influence from large holders, and the proposal caps any single participant at 5% of total voting power through the protocol.

Funding and TransparencyFunding for the program would come from ecosystem sources, including treasury allocations and fees generated by the Dolomite-operated lending market. Under the new proposal, fees from that market would help top up the reward pool every two weeks, with balances published to a publicly monitorable on-chain address.

The proposal makes clear that passive token ownership alone is not enough. Holders must commit capital and show up at the ballot to earn.

The move fits a broader trend in decentralized finance of tying economic rewards to active governance participation rather than simple token holdings. For @worldlibertyfi, it also serves a strategic purpose: reducing liquid supply while deepening community engagement ahead of further product rollouts.

Sources:
Crypto Times: WLFI Launches Governance Proposal for Holder Voting Incentives
CoinDesk: World Liberty Financial Launches DeFi Lending Platform for USD1
The Block: World Liberty Financial Proposes Staking-Based WLFI Governance

Morgan Stanley’s Global Investment Committee has formally endorsed Bitcoin as a scarce, non-sovereign store of value, drawing a direct parallel to gold and recommending it as a legitimate portfolio allocation for clients across the risk spectrum.

What the allocation framework actually looks like The GIC’s recommended Bitcoin exposure ranges from 0-2% for balanced growth portfolios and climbs to 2-4% for clients with a higher risk tolerance and a more opportunistic mandate. Those numbers were formalized in October 2025 and reflect the committee’s view that Bitcoin’s fixed supply and low current penetration make it a credible long-term holding.

Morgan Stanley estimates Bitcoin’s market cap represents roughly 2% of a $130 trillion addressable market. That market is defined as the combined value of global M2 money supply and gold.

The bank’s research projects annualized returns for Bitcoin across several adoption scenarios. A flat-adoption environment produces returns in the neighborhood of 3%. A baseline scenario tied to steady population growth points toward 6-7% annually. Accelerated adoption could push returns closer to 10%. These are scenario-based return estimates grounded in user-growth modeling frameworks typically applied to emerging technology platforms.

Amy Oldenburg walked through the digital gold thesis and the allocation framework in a Bitcoin Magazine interview on September 14, 2026.

The MSBT ETP: putting product behind the thesis In April 2026, the bank launched MSBT, a spot Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Product. By September 14, 2026, the product had gathered approximately $609 million in assets under management.

Morgan Stanley’s emphasis on client education is deliberate. The bank frames Bitcoin’s case around attributes that traditional asset allocation frameworks can engage with: fixed supply, the absence of sovereign control, and a large but underpenetrated addressable market.

What this means for institutional adoption This is a formal allocation recommendation from a Global Investment Committee, backed by a proprietary ETP and communicated publicly through media appearances. A 2% allocation in a balanced portfolio is small enough to be positioned as a diversification hedge rather than a speculative bet.

The focus on Bitcoin specifically, rather than the broader digital asset universe, is notable. Morgan Stanley’s research zeroes in on Bitcoin’s monetary properties and store-of-value characteristics rather than treating it as part of a broader crypto basket.

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

Bitcoin has held near $77,000 as investors have reduced risk before the Federal Reserve’s Sept. 16 policy decision, with analysts watching $76,000 support and $83,000 resistance.

Summary

Bitcoin remains range-bound as markets price in an 86%–87% chance of a 25-basis-point Fed hike. Analysts identify $76,000 and $83,000 as the levels needed to confirm Bitcoin’s next direction. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded about $463 million in net outflows last week. A possible Bank of Japan hike could tighten yen funding and pressure leveraged crypto positions. Nansen senior research analyst Nicolai Søndergaard told crypto.news that Bitcoin traders have adopted a cautious position before Wednesday’s Federal Reserve decision, even though the expected 25-basis-point rate increase is likely priced into the market.

Weekend trading remained choppy, while capital stayed concentrated in Bitcoin and other liquid cryptocurrencies rather than smaller tokens or leveraged positions. Søndergaard interpreted the setup as investors waiting for central-bank guidance instead of withdrawing from the crypto market completely.

“Investors are not rushing for the exits, but they are not chasing risk either; they are staying in the majors and waiting for the Fed to show its hand,” he said.

Bitcoin needs to break $76K or $83K Holding around $77,000 has left Bitcoin close to the lower end of a range that analysts expect to remain in place until the central bank meetings provide a clearer direction.

Søndergaard said a move above approximately $83,000 or below $76,000 would need strong spot-market volume before he would consider it a valid directional break. Without that confirmation, he expects traders to continue taking short-term positions around the week’s policy events.

“For now, the market still looks range-bound. I would want to see a clean break above roughly $83k or below $76k, backed by strong spot volume, before treating it as a real directional move.”

Bitfinex analysts have identified a similar trading range. According to earlier market analysis, they expect the Fed decision to produce enough volatility for Bitcoin to test liquidity near both $82,000 and $76,000 rather than moving cleanly in one direction.

Market caution has also appeared in U.S.-listed investment products. Bitget Wallet research analyst Lacie Zhang said U.S. spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds posted roughly $463 million in net outflows last week, although buyers continued defending Bitcoin near $76,000.

The outflows show that allocation demand has weakened without disappearing, according to Zhang. A separate ETF flow report placed the weekly withdrawal at $462.7 million, while spot Ethereum funds attracted $196.9 million during the same period.

Fed guidance poses more risk than the expected hike Interest-rate futures have placed the probability of a 25-basis-point Fed increase at about 86%–87%, according to Zhang and ViaBTC chief analyst Jeff Ko. Both analysts said the decision itself has already been largely absorbed by the market, leaving the policy statement, economic projections and Fed Chair Kevin Warsh’s press conference as the main sources of risk.

Zhang said a hawkish surprise could push two-year Treasury and real yields higher, raising pressure on Bitcoin and other non-yielding assets. A decision to hold rates, or guidance suggesting that one increase would be enough, could produce the opposite market response.

Ko tied the change in rate expectations to last week’s U.S. consumer price index report. Headline CPI increased 0.4% from the previous month and 3.4% from a year earlier, with gasoline accounting for more than one-third of the monthly rise, he said.

Core CPI rose 0.3% month over month, one-tenth of a percentage point above consensus, while its annual rate eased to 2.4%, the lowest level since March 2021. Before the inflation report, futures had placed the probability of a quarter-point increase at roughly 65%–70%, according to Ko.

“On balance I think a hike buys credibility with a new chair whose reaction function is still being tested. The more interesting question is whether this is a one-off insurance move or the start of another cycle, and the dots will answer that more clearly than the decision does.”

Longer-dated Treasury yields may provide a more useful signal than rate expectations after the announcement, Ko added. The 10-year yield was near 4.95% by Sept. 10, while the 30-year yield stood around 5.37%.

For Bitcoin, Ko said investors should assess real yields, the dollar, and spot ETF flows together. His constructive scenario requires a rate increase followed by stable or falling yields and continued ETF accumulation, which would indicate that institutional buying is absorbing tighter financial conditions.

CLARITY Act vote adds a second U.S. risk Before the Fed announces its decision, the U.S. Senate is scheduled to hold a procedural vote on the CLARITY Act on Tuesday afternoon. The measure requires 60 votes to advance, leaving Republicans with 53 seats dependent on support from at least seven Democrats.

Ko said prediction markets had reduced the probability of enactment. In his assessment, failure to advance the bill could leave U.S. crypto market-structure legislation unresolved until the 2027 Congress.

A failed procedural vote followed by hawkish Fed projections could compound the effect on crypto markets, Ko added, because the two events would affect regulatory expectations and financial conditions within roughly one day of each other.

Senate Republicans have presented Democrats with a 635-page proposal containing 126 requested changes. The draft includes revised ethics restrictions for federal officials, lawmakers, judges and their spouses, as well as proposed Treasury authority to respond if payment stablecoins cause widespread deposit withdrawals from community banks.

Opposition has also come from state officials. A group of 17 attorneys general, including officials from California, Illinois, Arizona, Kansas, Ohio, and Wisconsin, challenged the bill before the procedural vote.

BoJ hike could squeeze crypto carry trades Outside the United States, Zhang identified the Bank of Japan as an underpriced source of market risk. Investors widely expect Japan’s central bank to move its policy rate toward 1.25%, but she said the increase could still reduce yen-funded liquidity even if traders have anticipated it.

A higher Japanese rate raises borrowing costs for investors who fund positions in yen and place the capital in assets offering stronger returns elsewhere. As such positions unwind, Zhang said pressure can reach cryptocurrency markets faster than it would following an expected hold from the Bank of England.

“The Fed remains the dominant central-bank signal for Bitcoin because it sets the dollar-liquidity and real-yield backdrop for non-yielding assets. But markets may be underweighting the Bank of Japan.”

Zhang said a less disruptive result would require central banks to describe any tightening as dependent on incoming economic data rather than the start of repeated rate increases. The Bank of England and the Bank of Japan will announce their policy decisions after the Fed meeting.

A rally in crypto markets has stalled as optimism wanes that a key US regulatory bill will progress this week.

The odds of the Clarity Act passing this year, which had jumped above 30% on Polymarket during the US trading session, fell back to 18% early Tuesday in Asia. That saw Bitcoin — which accounts for around 60% of the market value of all cryptocurrencies — retreat from as high as $79,586 to below $78,000 as of 8:40 a.m. in Singapore.

US Senator Mark Warner told reporters at the US Capitol that a group of Democratic negotiators would send a counteroffer to Republicans ahead of tomorrow’s pivotal procedural vote on the Clarity Act, the comprehensive crypto regulation bill that has been stuck in partisan wrangling for a year. The bill will need a number of Democrats to cross party lines to advance and move later to final passage thanks to the Senate’s 60-vote rule for most legislation.

“Odds of a 2026 signing sat above 70% in May, collapsed to the low teens through August and rebounded toward 30% on Monday. That is a market with no stable read,” said Rachael Lucas, an analyst at BTC Markets, citing prediction-market odds. Still, “a counteroffer is consistent with a negotiation that is still live, not one that has broken down,” she said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters earlier Monday that progress had been made in recent days, but he didn’t know if the votes would be there to advance the bill Tuesday.

The biggest sticking point has been ethics provisions that Democrats have seen as inadequate to prevent President Donald Trump from continuing to profit from crypto after he reported $1.4 billion in income last year. But other issues, including concerns from banks that crypto stablecoins could siphon their deposits, have also been the subject of massive lobbying efforts.

Republican senators released a final draft of the bill, with changes addressing some of its most contentious points.

The new version would give the Treasury secretary power to intervene if deposit flight became “detrimental” to community banks. It also added new ethics guardrails for the president and other elected officials holding cryptocurrencies. The new ethics rules would force the president to divest from virtual assets or place significant holdings in a blind trust, or else face financial penalties. It also empowered state attorneys general to play a role in enforcing the ethics rules.

Shares of crypto-related companies rallied Monday, with digital exchange Coinbase Global Inc. jumping 9.2% and stablecoin issuer Circle Internet Group Inc. increasing 7.5%.

Still, for some industry observers, the Federal Reserve’s rate-setting meeting may turn out to be the most market-moving event for the digital-asset market this week.

“Markets now price roughly an 86% to 87% chance of a 25 basis point Fed hike on Wednesday, and Bitcoin appears to have absorbed much of that base case by holding in the mid-to-high $70,000s rather than breaking its August structure,” said Lacie Zhang, a research analyst at Bitget Wallet. “The larger repricing risk would come from a hawkish surprise in the statement.”

Ripple USD (RLUSD) has grown into one of the larger regulated dollar stablecoins, with net circulating supply recently topping an all-time high of about $2.44 billion before settling near $2.42 billion. That expansion looks like a success story for Ripple’s dual-chain product.

A closer look at where the new tokens actually landed tells a more complicated story.

Most of the growth since July has accumulated on Ethereum, not on the XRP Ledger that Ripple has long promoted as its flagship settlement network.

RLUSD launched in December 2024 on both chains under a New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) trust-company charter.

The design was straightforward: XRPL would handle fast, low-cost enterprise payments, while Ethereum would connect the token to deep DeFi liquidity. For much of 2025,

Ethereum dominated.

At one point it held close to 88 percent of supply. XRPL then staged a notable catch-up. By late June 2026 the two networks were roughly even.

In early July the XRP Ledger briefly pulled ahead, holding roughly $863 million against Ethereum’s $676 million out of a total near $1.54 billion.

That lead did not last through the subsequent surge.

Total supply rose more than 50 percent in a little over a month as Ripple minted and redeemed tokens to meet demand, rebalance liquidity, and support exchange and lending markets.

Live trackers now show Ethereum with about $1.37 billion, or 56.5 percent of circulating RLUSD, versus $1.05 billion, or 43.5 percent, on XRPL.

The gap is not just a rounding error.

The bulk of the hundreds of millions of dollars added since midsummer has been issued or moved onto Ethereum.

The reasons are structural.

Ethereum still hosts the largest concentration of DeFi venues that can put a dollar stablecoin to work.

Aave’s lending contracts alone hold on the order of $330 million in RLUSD.

Curve pools and other automated market makers add further depth. Average balances on Ethereum run far higher than on XRPL, pointing to institutional and protocol-level holdings rather than a wide retail base.

XRPL, by contrast, shows more individual holders and trust lines, cheaper fees, and faster settlement—advantages that matter for payments but have not absorbed most of the newest issuance.

Ripple itself treats the two chains as complementary rather than competing.

The company mints and burns on both ledgers, parks inventory for market-making, and periodically rebalances.

Those treasury operations explain some of the visible transfers.

They do not change the destination of net new capital.

When demand spiked in August and early September, Ethereum received the larger share.

The result is an awkward split for a product often framed as proof of XRPL’s enterprise readiness.

RLUSD is growing quickly, is fully reserved, and is expanding toward corporate treasury use and additional networks.

Yet the chain that captured most of the post-July inflow is the one Ripple did not build. It now remains to be seen if XRPL can reclaim a majority as payment volume scales remains an open question. For now the numbers are clear: the stablecoin is larger than ever, and most of that extra size lives on Ethereum.

SecondFI, a self-custody neofinance platform, has come up with an asset recovery tool after the $2 million exploit that happened in the month of June. The tool is designed to allow users affected by its security incident to recover their assets.

However, the tool is not in full swing yet, as the company is taking a staged approach to make sure the recovery mechanism itself is secure before releasing it publicly.

What’s SecondFI’s plan of action? For this, SecondFi has commissioned an independent security review of the technology behind it and plans to conduct another audit of the smart contract that will ultimately handle the recovery process.

But before this, SecondFi had already identified that the 374 Cardano wallet exploit was caused by a deterministic nonce derivation flaw in its software signer.

This allowed attackers to mathematically reconstruct private keys from public blockchain data after affected addresses signed transactions.

How is zkSecurity helping SecondFi? On the 3rd of August 2026, SecondFi hired zkSecurity to independently audit its proof-tool repository. The repository uses zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) that allow an affected user to prove that they control a particular Cardano [ADA] wallet credential.

The interesting part here is that the user can prove their control without revealing their seed phrase, private key, or wallet derivation path.

Additionally, the system is optimized to run directly in a web browser. As a result, it allows users to generate proofs locally instead of sending sensitive wallet information to a remote server.

Issues identified and fixed As of now, according to the audit report, zkSecurity has identified two high-severity issues in upstream code. Notably, SecondFi has fixed both the issues. Meanwhile, zkSecurity has also reviewed and tested the fixes, confirming they have been resolved.

At the same time, the audit also found two low-severity issues in SecondFi’s own repository, which remain open but were assessed as not practically exploitable.

While these issues have not been fixed yet, the findings do not necessarily mean the recovery tool is unsafe.

That said, SecondFi expects the asset recovery tool to be launched in the coming weeks. However, this solely depends on the completion of the recovery smart contract audit and final production checks.

Final Summary SecondFi has commissioned an independent security review of the technology behind it. The firm also hired zkSecurity to independently audit its proof-tool repository. 

@Zcash's $ZEC climbed 10.25% over the past 24 hours to trade near $1,195, lifting its market capitalisation to $20.16 billion and placing it tenth on CoinMarketCap, just ahead of Dogecoin and Monero. Trading volume over the same period reached $1.4 billion.

The weekly gain is a more modest 2.66%, reflecting a dip toward $1,000 on Friday before a steady recovery. Circulating supply stands at 16.86 million coins against a hard cap of 21 million, a design it shares with Bitcoin.

A Remarkable Year for ZEC The latest move is part of a much larger story. $ZEC has surged roughly 2,496% over the past year, with its market-cap ranking jumping from 82nd place to the current top ten during that run. It now accounts for approximately 62% of the entire privacy sector's total market value.

Several catalysts have underpinned the rally. Grayscale's Zcash ETF launched on 25 August and quickly drew institutional attention, with the fund's assets under management approaching $700 million within its first two weeks of trading, according to Coinbase. An earlier regulatory overhang was also removed in January 2026 when the SEC closed its investigation into the Zcash Foundation without recommending enforcement action.

On the network side, the Ironwood upgrade introduced a new shielded pool following a previously disclosed vulnerability, with around 176,000 ZEC migrating into the new pool on its first day. Approximately 30% of ZEC supply is now held in shielded addresses, a figure analysts say reflects genuine adoption rather than short-term speculation.

Privacy Coins Lead a Divided Market The broader privacy coin sector has been crypto's strongest performing category by some distance. The sector is up 213% since Bitcoin reached its October 2025 peak, according to Glassnode data, making it the only major crypto category still trading above that level. Bitcoin itself remains roughly 36% below its October 2025 high, while the median top-200 asset is down around 58%.

Even stripping out Zcash entirely, the remaining privacy basket is up 85% over the past year, with Monero, Dash, and Zen all posting notable gains. Only 25 of the 200 largest crypto assets are in positive territory for the year, making $ZEC's performance a clear outlier.

Risks remain. Short squeezes have amplified parts of the move, and analysts note that leveraged positions could create sharp reversals. A planned quantum-proof upgrade scheduled for later in 2026 adds a longer-term technical narrative, though complex cryptographic upgrades carry execution risk.

Sources:
Crypto Times: ZEC Leads Privacy Coin Rally as Sector Surges 213%
Bitcoin Foundation: Why Zcash Could Be the Biggest Privacy Coin Comeback of 2026
CoinDesk: Zcash Jumps 20% to Landmark $1,000 Level

It’s time to get real about hooks.

September 14, 2026

This year 0x has routed 81.92 million trades and $42.67 billion in volume, with roughly ~70% of transactions touching Uniswap liquidity.

And we field dozens of requests to review and integrate v4 hooks every month, so we’ve seen the good and the bad. But lately, we’ve been seeing the ugly, too.

In the last few weeks, 0x has seen an alarming increase in malicious Uniswap v4 hooks, designed to price swaps one way in quote requests and another way at the time of settlement. Malicious hooks use multiple patterns, but the result is the same: stealing from users by spoofing aggregators, wallets, and trading apps.

Here’s what we’ve observed onchain and what actions we’ve taken at 0x.

‍

The problem with hooks: open to builders and bad actorsTo start with the good, v4 hooks offered the AMM space an innovation layer: a way for builders to spin up AMMs with custom logic that can execute at key points in a pool’s lifecycle, such as before or after a swap or LP position changes. Hooks can be designed to do anything, deployed by anyone, and the moment they exist, they inherit the distribution of the most widely integrated liquidity venue in DeFi.

Beyond the friction this eliminated for builders, hooks also create infinite room for malicious behavior. A malicious hook doesn’t need to build a recognizable brand, convince users to visit a new interface, or bootstrap its own distribution. It only needs to make its pool look attractive to the systems that aggregate liquidity.

If an aggregator sees the best quote, it has a reason to route there. If a wallet or trading app relies on that aggregator, the malicious pool can be reached through the same infrastructure users already trust.

‍

Malicious hooksWhat we’ve seen over the last 18 months is an explosion of v4 hooks. Our analysis (leveraging static analysis, dynamic analysis, and observation of settled trades) of 84,163 hooks across 6 chains determined that only 19.4% are safe, 54.2% are malicious, and 26.4% are likely malicious.

Data as of 11 September 2026The patterns vary — some operate like a dice roll, some inspect the EVM environment to detect quoting — but the underlying behavior is consistent: the price a route advertises is not the price a user can reliably expect to receive. We’ve observed trades routed through malicious v4 deliver as much as 50% less at execution than the amount quoted to the user.

Here are a few examples:

Hook: 0x800cef53c3fd41109dffec62e5251bdd7acba5c7

Chain: BasePair: ETH/NVDAcTotal fills: 6,516Charged fills: 3,946 (60.6%)Fee range: 0-18%Median fee on all fills: 17.96%Median fee when charged: 18%Total fees charged (USD): $143,037

Data as of 11 September 2026‍

Hook: 0x141984423d1a28242b3dd8888c5b0daa7b13c880

Chain: BNBPair: USDT/WBNBTotal fills: 4,879Charged fills: 1,619 (33.2%)Fee range: 0-12.8%Median fee on all fills: 0%Median fee when charged: 12.8%Total fees charged (USD): $18,592

Data as of 11 September 2026‍

The takeawayHooks were designed to make Uniswap more extensible, but they also opened up infinite opportunities for abuse. This summer has shown that permissionless liquidity does not automatically mean trusted liquidity. As with the rise of propAMMs, the same flexibility that lets builders customize how swaps work also gives bad actors new ways to manipulate them. To that end, we believe:

Routers need to ensure a pool’s quoted amount matches its actual execution behavior.Apps need controls for quickly removing suspicious routes.Users should know that the best displayed quote is only useful if the route behind it is safe.And just as we have for the past decade, we’re taking concrete steps to keep our integrators and their users safe from the ever-changing cast of bad actors onchain. At 0x, we’ve taken several steps to prevent these pools from appearing in routes, including advanced detection techniques and extreme due diligence around pool vetting.

Thank you for building with 0x.

‍

Contents

Subscribe to newsletter

Yay! You’re signed up.

Oops! Something went wrong, but it's not your fault.

22h05 ▪ 5 min read ▪ by Luc Jose A.

Summarize this article with:

During the shortened week of September 8, U.S. crypto ETFs recorded nearly $263 million in net outflows. The positive gathering of products related to Ether, XRP, and Solana was masked by withdrawals concentrated on Bitcoin ETFs.

In brief Bitcoin ETFs record nearly $463 million in outflows over four sessions. Ether ETFs resist with $197 million inflows over the week. XRP and Solana ETFs extend their positive inflows despite smaller amounts. The Fed and the CLARITY Act could influence flow trajectories in upcoming sessions. Bitcoin ETFs lose $463 million Over four sessions, the Bitcoin ETFs experienced $462.73 million in net outflows. However, they remained on three consecutive weeks of inflows, including about one billion dollars during the previous week.

On Tuesday, September 8, withdrawals began with $46.65 million. Then, they reached $120.24 million on Wednesday, followed by $282.56 million on Thursday. The pace slowed considerably on Friday with a limited loss of $13.29 million.

Flow distribution shows the funds that contributed most to this reversal :

ARKB from Ark Invest and 21Shares lost $234.2 million ; GBTC from Grayscale saw $129.1 million in outflows ; IBIT from BlackRock surrendered $52.5 million ; FBTC from Fidelity lost $50.7 million ; MSBT from Morgan Stanley resisted with $19.7 million in inflows. Despite this weekly decline, Bitcoin ETFs retained nearly $307.3 million in net inflows since the beginning of September. This movement thus reflects a short-term demand interruption, without completely erasing the accumulated gathering over the month.

Ether ETFs attract $197 million Ether ETFs took an opposite trajectory. They gathered $197.11 million over the week and logged a fourth consecutive positive weekly period. However, such a result was almost entirely based on a single session.

On Tuesday, funds suffered a loss of $24.29 million, before gaining $34.75 million on Wednesday. On Thursday, a new outflow of $29.76 million followed. On Friday, an inflow of $216.41 million erased these hesitations. The week therefore ended in the green.

In this rebound, BlackRock played a key role. Its iShares Ethereum Trust collected $148.8 million on Friday, while the 21Shares fund added $29.1 million.

A gap also appears in investor activity. On Bitcoin ETFs, traded volume declined nearly 28% over a week, to $8.76 billion. Volume for Ether-related products rose by 54%, reaching about $5.14 billion.

XRP and Solana extend their positive gathering During the period, XRP ETFs recorded $18.98 million in inflows. They collected $1.55 million on Tuesday, $12.29 million on Wednesday, and $5.14 million on Thursday. Friday saw no movement.

Regarding Solana ETFs, they closed the week with $10.30 million inflow. On Wednesday, $11.73 million inflows compensated for smaller withdrawals on other days.

These amounts remain much lower than those of Bitcoin and Ether products. However, they reveal that institutional investors have not abandoned the entire crypto market. Rather, they have redistributed part of their capital across various assets.

Such divergence does not necessarily represent a durable rotation signal. Indeed, a positive week may arise from a small number of significant transactions, especially for categories whose assets under management and volumes remain limited.

The Fed Could Reshuffle the Cards Starting This Week This reversal of Bitcoin ETFs occurs in a more difficult environment for risky assets. Rising oil prices fuel concerns about inflation, while investors anticipate the Federal Reserve’s monetary decision scheduled for September 16.

This climate also affects traditional markets. U.S. equity funds experienced outflows totaling $32.27 billion during the week of September 8, their largest decline in nine months.

In the Senate, the expected vote on the CLARITY Act would also influence flows. Any development on cryptocurrency regulatory frameworks would solidify manager visibility, while a delay could prolong uncertainty.

Upcoming sessions will determine whether Bitcoin ETF outflows represent mere profit-taking or a deeper reversal. Fund reactions to the Fed’s decision will provide an initial answer.

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

Luc Jose A.

Diplômé de Sciences Po Toulouse et titulaire d'une certification consultant blockchain délivrée par Alyra, j'ai rejoint l'aventure Cointribune en 2019. Convaincu du potentiel de la blockchain pour transformer de nombreux secteurs de l'économie, j'ai pris l'engagement de sensibiliser et d'informer le grand public sur cet écosystème en constante évolution. Mon objectif est de permettre à chacun de mieux comprendre la blockchain et de saisir les opportunités qu'elle offre. Je m'efforce chaque jour de fournir une analyse objective de l'actualité, de décrypter les tendances du marché, de relayer les dernières innovations technologiques et de mettre en perspective les enjeux économiques et sociétaux de cette révolution en marche.

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.

Technical Post-Mortem

On 18 August 2026, GalaChain was targeted by an autonomous, AI-driven exploit agent that successfully executed unauthorized transfers across nine GalaChain wallets. Notably, the agent discovered and weaponized an edge-case logic flaw that had evaded multiple rounds of rigorous third-party smart contract audits.

Our monitoring systems detected the anomalous machine-speed activity, severed the agent’s exfiltration route mid-execution, and deployed a permanent on-chain patch within 45 minutes of the final transaction.

This post-mortem details the AI-generated exploit vector, our incident response timeline, and the hardened verification controls deployed to counter autonomous threat actors moving forward.

Every claim below is tagged with how it can be independently checked. Claims marked ledger are verifiable against the public GalaChain ledger. Claims marked source are verifiable against our public repository. Claims marked attested rest on internal records and cannot be externally verified — we have labelled them so you can weigh them accordingly.

Machine-readable summary incident: id: galachain-2026-08-18 class: signature-replay / signature-scope-confusion first_unauthorized_transfer: 2026-08-18T02:21:54.694Z # verify: ledger, block 10404040 largest_single_loss_gala: 1639810337.11548495 # verify: ledger, one transaction bridge_paused: 2026-08-18T05:09:19.831Z # verify: ledger attacker_roles_revoked: 2026-08-18T05:22:17.447Z # verify: ledger account_lockdown_completed: 2026-08-18T06:18:52Z # verify: ledger fix_deployed: 2026-08-18T06:27:00Z # verify: source total_submissions: 1066 # verify: ledger median_submission_interval_sec: 4.5 # verify: ledger same_block_interval_pct: 73.9 # verify: ledger affected_accounts: 9 # verify: ledger execution_mode: automated # verify: attested keys_compromised: none_found # verify: attested document_as_of: 2026-09-10 verification: ledger: https://explorer.galachain.com source: https://github.com/GalaChain/sdk What happened ledger At 02:21:54.694 UTC, a single TransferToken call moved 1,639,810,337.11548495 GALA out of the largest affected account — the entire balance, in one operation, in the opening seconds of the attack. The payload declared a signature type set for one operation while invoking another, so the fields that directed the transfer were never covered by the signature the account holder had produced.

ledger The operation ran at machine cadence: a median of 4.5 seconds between submissions, with 73.9% landing exactly one block apart — pinned to block production, with no deliberation interval between actions.

ledger In aggregate, approximately 2.0 billion GALA and quantities of roughly 37 other tokens left nine wallets. Proceeds were bridged out and have been traced across four chains.

We paused the bridge, revoked the operator’s account roles, and deployed a permanent fix at 06:27 UTC the same morning.

Findings as of 10 September 2026 Our investigation is ongoing. Based on evidence identified to date:

attested No evidence that any private key was compromised, ours or any user’s. attested No evidence that passwords, seed phrases or credentials were obtained. attested No evidence of phishing or social engineering against any affected holder. attested No evidence of unauthorized access to Gala systems — no database, key store, server or internal system. ledger The transactions we have examined carried cryptographically valid signatures. No evidence of a forged signature has been identified. Technique: signature scope confusion source GalaChain uses EIP-712 typed-data signing. A client constructs a structured payload, the user’s wallet signs it, and the chaincode verifies that signature before executing the operation.

source EIP-712 hashes a payload according to a declared type set. In the implementation at the time, that type declaration travelled with the payload rather than being derived from the operation being invoked. Verification confirmed the signature over the fields the declaration named, and the dispatch layer executed the operation as described — but the set of fields covered by the signature and the set of fields read at execution were not required to be identical.

Two further properties were relevant:

source Verification established authenticity rather than scope. Confirming that an account holder signed a structure is distinct from confirming they authorised a specific operation. ledger Signature material was recoverable from public ledger data. Transaction payloads on a public blockchain are public by design — a property common to public chains generally. Preparation and tooling The preparation was extensive and is verifiable ledger The operator did not improvise. It arrived with an inventory of 74 replayable signatures, harvested from transactions that had failed on GalaChain over the preceding eight weeks — the oldest 55 days and 432,190 blocks before the attack began, drawn near-continuously across that window rather than scraped from recent blocks.

ledger Of the 60 source transactions located on chain, 57 contained at least one failed inner operation and none were wholly successful — confirming the harvest mechanism precisely. A transaction that fails publishes its signed payload to the public ledger but does not consume its unique key, leaving that signature replayable.

ledger It also arrived with a balance table built off-platform: 56 of 59 account-token pairs were drained with the exactly correct amount on the first attempt, to eighteen decimal places. Across 689 replay attempts, only one used a probe value to discover a balance. The four largest GALA holdings were taken in exact descending order of value, inside eighteen seconds. Ranking targets that way requires having indexed and sorted holder balances before the first transaction was sent.

Tooling attested The class of defect exploited here — a divergence between the fields a signature covers and the fields execution reads — is exactly the kind of flaw that automated source-code analysis has become effective at surfacing. Identifying it required reading verification logic and reasoning about what it did and did not bind, at a scale and speed that has become substantially cheaper than when our review cadence was designed.

attested The development and reconnaissance phases of this operation show the signature of AI-assisted tooling. We note that the identity conducting reconnaissance need not be the identity that executed, and our analysis of the operation spans both.

ledger Execution itself was machine-driven throughout: 1,066 submissions at a median 4.5 second interval, 73.9% exactly one block apart, sustained across more than three hours without a human-scale pause.

Independent security review attested The GalaChain SDK has been under continuous third-party security review by two independent firms since early 2024:

Engagement Auditor Period Gala SDK — chain-api, chain-cli, chaincode CertiK Jan–Feb 2024 Ethereum bridge CertiK prior engagement Authorization-focused review CertiK Nov–Dec 2025 Full SDK review Hashlock Jan 2026 Full repository review, commit-pinned CertiK Sept 2026 attested The defective verification logic was present in code covered by at least two subsequent independent reviews — CertiK’s authorization-focused engagement of November–December 2025, whose scope was precisely this area, and Hashlock’s full SDK review of January 2026. Neither identified it.

The replay protection this attack had to defeat also came from an audit finding.

attested CertiK’s 2024 review raised replay risk as a class, recorded as “Potential for Replay Attacks due to Lack of Enforced Unique Transaction Keys.” We implemented unique-key enforcement in response, and it worked as specified: a signed payload, once submitted, cannot be submitted again.

ledger The operator’s contribution was identifying that this control had a boundary. A transaction that fails publishes its signed payload but does not consume its unique key — so it remains submittable. Rather than attempting to replay spent payloads, which the audited control would have rejected, it sourced payloads exclusively from failed transactions in historical ledger data, where the protection did not reach.

That is the shape of this incident: a purpose-built, audit-mandated control with an edge case that survived multiple rounds of expert review, and an adversary that found it.

Detection characteristics ledger Every transfer validated cleanly. The signatures were authentic, the accounts existed, and the operations were well-formed, so each request presented to the chaincode as authorised. There were no signature failures or authentication anomalies to alert on — the conventional indicators that security monitoring is built around were entirely absent.

attested The anomalous activity was identified during the event. What the incident exposed was the interval between identifying machine-speed activity and being able to act on it: the controls available at the time required manual intervention, on a timescale the operation did not allow. Controls 4 through 6 below close that interval.

Response timeline (UTC, 18 August 2026) Time Event Verify 02:21:54.694 Largest account emptied — 1,639,810,337.11548495 GALA in one transaction ledger 02:27 → 04:24 Bridge-outs executed ledger 05:09:19 Bridge paused; exit attempts rejected thereafter ledger 05:22:17 Operator account roles revoked ledger 05:22 → 06:18 Affected account roles revoked ledger 06:27 Permanent fix deployed to production source Controls now in place These describe changes to our own systems. They are not warranties, and no control eliminates risk entirely.

1. Signed payloads bound to the operation they authorise · source The type set used for verification is no longer accepted from the caller. It is derived from the invoked method, and verification fails where the signed structure does not match the operation being executed. Deployed 18 August 2026.

2. Operation binding · source DTOs carry a dtoOperation field naming the channel, contract and method they authorise. Verification rejects payloads whose declared operation does not match the invocation. Mandatory across our first-party clients.

3. Signature expiry · source DTOs carry a dtoExpiresAt timestamp; payloads are rejected outside their validity window. This substantially reduces the utility of historical signatures already on the ledger, and operates independently of the primary fix.

4. Verifier rate limiting · attested Per-identity rate limits apply at the verification layer, constraining high-volume activity in compressed windows independently of whether individual operations validate.

5. Behavioural monitoring on high-value accounts · attested Balance-change monitoring covers high-value accounts, alerting on transfer patterns rather than authentication events.

6. Bridge release controls · attested Bridge-out requests above defined thresholds require manual review before release.

7. Continuous, commit-pinned review · attested The gap this incident exposed is that a point-in-time audit says nothing about code committed after it. We have commissioned a full-repository review pinned to a specific commit, and are moving to a model where security-sensitive paths are re-reviewed on change rather than on a calendar.

How to verify this yourself Ledger claims. Query explorer.galachain.com for the block range covering 2026-08-18T02:21:54Z to 2026-08-18T06:30:00Z. The initial transfer is in block 10404040. Transfer records, their signatures, the failed retry sequence, and the bridge-pause and account-lock state transitions are all on-chain.

Source claims. The SDK is public at github.com/GalaChain/sdk. Verification logic, the dtoOperation and dtoExpiresAt field definitions, and their enforcement are readable in the repository. Commit history establishes when each change landed.

Attested claims. These rest on internal records — audit reports, infrastructure logs and monitoring configuration — that we have not published. Where they matter to you, ask and we will say what we can.

We believe accountability must be demonstrated, not simply asserted.

Where things stand Our investigation remains ongoing. A complaint has been filed with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, and preservation and freeze requests are with the relevant platforms. The proceeds remain traced.

Grayscale handed financial advisors a ready-made crypto allocation on Monday, and XRP (XRP) took 26.11% of it. The token is the second-largest holding in the firm’s new Digital Assets Next Gen model portfolio.

A model portfolio is a published recipe. Grayscale picks the assets and the weights, and an advisor copies that mix into client accounts using the firm’s exchange-traded funds.

Today, Grayscale launched Model Portfolios.

Four strategies built around distinct investment objectives:

• Digital Assets Core Plus: Broad exposure to established assets, including $BTC, $ETH, $SOL, and $LINK
• Digital Assets Leaders: Exposure to the five largest eligible… pic.twitter.com/p62Gqrlkko

— Grayscale (@Grayscale) September 14, 2026 XRP Sits Second in a Portfolio Built Without BitcoinThe Next Gen model leaves Bitcoin out and held seven funds as of August 31. Ether leads at 42.34%, XRP follows at 26.11%, and Solana takes 21.09%.

Grayscale’s New Crypto Portfolios. Source: GrayscaleThose three fill roughly 89% of the basket. Hyperliquid, a trading-focused blockchain whose Grayscale fund listed only in June, takes 5.76%. Chainlink, Avalanche, and Sui split what is left.

Grayscale caps any one asset at 40% and resets the weights every three months. Ether has already drifted past that cap since the model started on July 27.

The Funds Behind It Have Been Losing MoneyXRP trades near $1.42, up about 5% on the day and fifth by market value. The Grayscale XRP Trust ETF, however, sits 38.51% below its launch price.

BeInCrypto reported in August that the same trust sold $180 million in tokens during the first half of the year at a realized loss. Six of the model’s seven funds trade below where they started.

The model itself shows a 30.69% net gain since July 27. That is five weeks of history built on one strong August, and the rest of the return table is empty.

Grayscale Returns on Model Portfolio. Source: Grayscale “Advisors are increasingly looking for ways to bring digital assets into client portfolios without having to build and maintain allocations asset by asset,” Laurie Katz, Grayscale’s Global Head of Distribution, framed the launch around convenience.

Grayscale charges no separate fee for the models, and the underlying funds average 0.23%. Whether advisors read Next Gen as emerging assets or as a large ether and XRP bet under a different name will decide how much money follows.

Despite Bitcoin failing to hold above $80,000 following the recent rally, the cryptocurrency is unlikely to revisit the lower price levels it has hovered near for much of this year, according to CoinMarketCap Head of Research Alice Liu.

“I think we might have already touched the bottom,” Liu tells Cointelegraph on Trade Secrets, referring to Bitcoin falling to around $59,000 in June this year, approximately 53% below its October all-time high of $126,100. 

Bitcoin recently tapped $81,600 at the start of September, an approximate 28% rally since mid-August. It pushed the CoinMarketCap Crypto Fear & Greed Index, which measures overall sentiment in the crypto market, back up to Greed after posting Fear scores for most of the year.

However, Liu says some of the more interesting narratives are unfolding outside Bitcoin, particularly in the markets for tokenized real-world assets and perpetual futures. “For Hype [Hyperliquid], there are two things I want to mention. Number one is the activity, and number two is the price, because the network activity doesn’t necessarily translate to the price, and vice versa,” she says.

Hyperliquid ‘still leads’ says Alice Liu“One interesting thing is I was looking at the RWA perps for the past two months, so the perpetrals backed onto tokenized stocks, tokenized ETFs, and tokenized indices,” she says. Liu said that while Hyperliquid currently holds market share, that might not always be the case as centralized exchanges swoop in.

“Tokenization of the perps, people normally traded on Hyperliquid. But since Binance started to launch the RWA perps, the volume and liquidity quickly moved to Binance,” Liu says. 

“Binance takes about 50% of the market share. But when it comes to DEX, Hyperliquid still leads in that space,” she says.

Hyperliquid is up 47.50% over the past 30 days. Source: CoinMarketCap

“Hyperliquid is still a venue where a lot of the liquidity is getting aggregated, and a lot of the product’s scale is created there.” 

On the Hyperliquid token’s price, Liu points to a different driver. “Hype did hit an all-time high recently: $86. And what’s really interesting is the buybacks.” She explains that Hyperliquid is leading the pack in token buybacks, which is when a project uses its revenue to buy back its own tokens on the open market.

“Hype has spent over $400 million USD on token buybacks. So I think some of this price action momentum we’re seeing is supported by that as well,” Liu says.

She says that Hyperliquid only has a small amount of tokens unlocked, so we’ll continue to see the token unlocks gradually come out.

Alice Liu is more cautious on the AI-crypto narrativeLiu says that means the Hype price is dependent on revenue flowing in to support buybacks.

“So, will we have enough activity on the network to generate the revenue to continue with the buybacks to support the price level? I think that’s one of the key things to watch.” While Liu remains bullish on Hyperliquid, she is more cautious on the AI-crypto narrative, particularly AI tokens with little or no utility that surged in popularity in late 2023.

“They are facing such big competition at the moment with the actual AI stocks, all the memory stocks, and all the AI companies. So I think that might be the competitor they’re facing,” Liu says

“For the previous cycle meme-ified AI tokens that do not have any utility or infrastructure, and are purely just backing onto a concept. I think those could potentially go to zero,” she says.

However, Liu emphasizes that there are “some really solid” AI infrastructure projects. “I think they will have utilities too. But even then, I think they’re likely to get a price discount,” she says.

Liu says Bitcoin and the broader crypto market are being underestimated as a place to park funds in the current economic environment, but she takes a more conservative view than Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and ARK Invest CEO Cathie Wood, who have both predicted Bitcoin will reach $1 million by 2030.

“Bitcoin to $500K by 2030,” Liu laughs.

“It’s not unlikely that we might hit one million, but I’ll give it a more conservative answer,” Liu adds.

Cointelegraph publishes long-form journalism, analysis and narrative reporting produced by Cointelegraph’s in-house editorial team with subject-matter expertise. All articles are edited and reviewed by Cointelegraph editors in line with our editorial standards. Some articles contain affiliate links, from which Cointelegraph may earn a commission. These relationships do not influence which products we review or our editorial conclusions. Content published in here does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice. Readers should conduct their own research and consult qualified professionals where appropriate. Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence.

Strive has purchased 469 Bitcoin for about $36.6 million, raising its corporate treasury to exactly 25,000 BTC as of Sep. 11.

Summary

Strive paid an average of about $77,954 for each Bitcoin acquired between Sep. 8 and Sep. 11. The company funded the $36.6 million purchase through proceeds from its SATA preferred stock rather than common shares. Strive also held about $204.2 million in cash and $49.81 million worth of Strategy’s STRC preferred stock. CEO Matt Cole said the company’s amplification ratio had increased to 53.5%. According to Strive’s Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company bought Bitcoin (BTC) between Sep. 8 and Sep. 11 at an average price of approximately $77,954 per coin.

Before the latest transaction, Strive held 24,531 BTC. The additional 469 BTC brought its balance to an even 25,000 BTC, adding another milestone to the company’s rapid accumulation campaign.

Chief Executive Matt Cole shared Strive’s updated Bitcoin portfolio tracker on X after the purchase was disclosed.

“Wall-breaking season at Strive,” Cole wrote.

The transaction followed several purchases completed within a short period. Strive acquired 1,800 BTC for about $143 million between Aug. 24 and Aug. 28, paying an average price of $79,431 per coin.

As crypto.news reported on Aug. 31, the 1,800 BTC purchase lifted Strive’s holdings to 23,156 BTC and moved the company into fifth place among publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holders at the time. Strive used proceeds from sales of SATA preferred stock and ASST common shares under its at-the-market programs to finance that acquisition.

Later purchases added 1,375 BTC before the latest 469 BTC transaction completed the move from 23,156 BTC to 25,000 BTC. Across the two additions, Strive expanded its treasury by 1,844 BTC after reaching the 23,156 BTC level.

At the stated purchase price, the newest Bitcoin acquisition was completed below the $79,431 average paid for the late-August batch. Strive’s filing provided the purchase period, total cost and average price, allowing U.S. investors to compare the transaction with the company’s earlier disclosures.

The company’s latest total also represents a sharp increase from April, when it held 14,557 BTC. At the time, earlier Strive coverage showed that the firm had climbed to ninth place among public corporate holders after building a Bitcoin balance sheet valued at more than $1 billion.

SATA proceeds funded the latest Bitcoin purchase Rather than using proceeds from common-stock sales, Strive financed the latest $36.6 million purchase through its Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Preferred Stock, which trades under the SATA ticker.

Preferred shares generally sit above common stock in a company’s capital structure for dividend and liquidation claims. Strive’s use of SATA gives the company a separate route for raising money while limiting the number of common shares issued specifically for the latest Bitcoin transaction.

According to the company’s disclosure, SATA’s nominal issuance value has passed $1 billion. The preferred-stock program has become a central source of funding for Strive’s Bitcoin purchases, although the company has also used common equity during earlier rounds.

The distinction matters to holders of Nasdaq-listed ASST because new common shares can dilute each existing shareholder’s ownership percentage. Preferred-stock financing carries its own costs and obligations, including dividend payments, but the latest deal did not depend on fresh common-share proceeds.

U.S. investors receive details about such transactions through Strive’s SEC filings. The reports show how much Bitcoin the company owns, how it paid for new purchases, and which other assets remain on its balance sheet. Investors can then assess their exposure through ASST alongside the risks created by Bitcoin price changes and the company’s financing structure.

Strive’s common stock had already drawn attention before the latest filing. On Sep. 7, the company signaled that another purchase could be approaching as its holdings stood at 23,156 BTC and ASST traded above $27, its highest level of 2026 at the time. Cole posted a Bitcoin-themed message on X before the later acquisition became public.

Strive reports a 53.5% amplification ratio Along with the updated Bitcoin balance, Cole said Strive’s amplification ratio had risen to 53.5%. The company uses the measure to track the amount of Bitcoin exposure available to common shareholders compared with its net asset value.

Strive’s portfolio tracker presents the ratio as one of its performance measures, although it is not the same as a standard accounting figure such as earnings, revenue or cash flow. Investors therefore need the company’s methodology to understand how changes in Bitcoin holdings, share issuance and other assets affect the reported percentage.

A rising ratio indicates that Strive calculates more Bitcoin exposure for common shareholders relative to the net asset value used in its formula. The figure can change when the company acquires Bitcoin or adjusts its capital structure, including through preferred or common-stock transactions.

Because Bitcoin remains a volatile asset, Strive’s treasury strategy also links the market value of its holdings to movements in BTC. A decline in Bitcoin can reduce the dollar value of the company’s main reserve asset, while a price increase can raise it. ASST shareholders receive indirect exposure through the listed company rather than owning the underlying coins themselves.

Cash and STRC remain on Strive’s balance sheet Apart from its 25,000 BTC treasury, Strive reported approximately $204.2 million in cash as of Sep. 11. The cash balance gives the company an asset that is not directly tied to Bitcoin’s market price and can be used for operating needs or other corporate purposes.

Strive also owned 505,000 shares of STRC, a preferred stock issued by Strategy. The position carried a fair value of about $49.81 million on the reporting date, according to the company’s disclosure.

Strategy designed STRC as a variable-rate preferred security. By holding the shares, Strive has exposure to another U.S.-listed company whose balance sheet and financing programs are closely connected to Bitcoin.

Strive assembled part of its current treasury through its combination with Semler Scientific. The transaction followed an earlier corporate reorganization involving Asset Entities, whose shareholders approved the merger with Strive in Sep. 2025.

At that stage, Strive Asset Management held 69 BTC as of Sep. 3, 2025, according to Bitcoin Treasuries data cited in the report. The subsequent expansion through direct purchases, preferred-stock financing and assets obtained from Semler Scientific raised the company’s reported balance to 25,000 BTC by Sep. 11, 2026.

In brief Strategy repurchased 1,420,467 shares of its STRC preferred stock for $139.3 million between September 8 and 13, funded entirely from its USD Cash reserve. The company bought no Bitcoin for a second straight week, holding steady at 845,050 BTC acquired for $63.73 billion at an average of $75,412 per coin. Roughly $1.05 billion remains under Strategy's $2 billion digital credit securities repurchase program, alongside $1 billion still available for MSTR stock buybacks. Strategy repurchased 1,420,467 shares of its STRC preferred stock for $139.3 million in the week to September 13, according to an 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday.

That pulled back from the $176.3 million the Bitcoin treasury company spent the previous week, when its board doubled the authorization behind its digital credit securities repurchase program to $2 billion. Every dollar came out of USD Cash, the liquidity pool management taps for buybacks, dividends and Bitcoin purchases alike.

Myriad: How much Bitcoin will Strategy hold? Click to make your prediction.The company bought and sold no Bitcoin during the period, leaving its holdings unchanged at 845,050 BTC for a second consecutive week. Strategy acquired that stack for $63.73 billion at an average price of $75,412 per coin, inclusive of fees.

Strategy repurchased none of its STRF, STRK, or STRD preferred shares, and bought back no MSTR common stock either. About $1.05 billion remains available under the $2 billion digital credit securities program, while a separate $1 billion authorization for MSTR stock sits untouched.

The company's dollar balances stood at $5.10 billion in the USD Reserve, which backs preferred dividends and interest payments, and $1.30 billion in USD Cash as of September 13. That's down from $1.44 billion a week earlier, tracking almost exactly with the $139.3 million spent buying back STRC.

Per Strategy's own credit dashboard, STRC's BTC Credit spread—the risk premium implied by pricing the security against Strategy's Bitcoin collateral—sits at roughly 57 basis points, assuming a 10% annualized Bitcoin return, 40% volatility and Bitcoin near $77,266.

That keeps the security in investment-grade territory on Strategy's own scale, which flags anything under 150 basis points that way. The same dashboard puts Strategy's aggregate Bitcoin reserve at $66.2 billion against a blended breakeven annualized return of 2.48%, with a duration of 40.3 years.

To put this in simple terms, a basis point is basically a way for finance experts to talk about tiny percentages—one basis point is equal to 0.01%, so 57 basis points is 0.57%. Think of the "Bitcoin Credit spread" as a safety gap: it represents the extra cost or risk associated with this investment compared to a safer investment.

Strategy has a rule that as long as this risk stays below 150 basis points (1.5%), they consider the investment very safe, or ​"investment-grade."​

The breakeven return of 2.48% is the minimum amount Strategy needs their Bitcoin to grow each year to cover their costs, and the 40.3-year duration means they have a very long time to reach that goal, giving them a massive cushion against short-term price drops.

So, at least on paper, things look OK, especially if Bitcoin keeps going up.

The buyback slowdown comes as Strategy awaits word on an MSCI proposal that could strip "non-operating companies" like Strategy from its global equity benchmarks.

Feedback on that consultation closes September 30, with a decision due October 16 — a date that could move billions of dollars in passive fund flows tied to Strategy's index weighting.

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

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

Swiss crypto platform SwissBorg unexpectedly expanded its listings, adding support for Litecoin (LTC) and Zcash (ZEC). For the European market, where regulators have been steadily cracking down on privacy coins, the Zcash integration became the biggest surprise of the week. 

You Might Also Like

According to the company, the decision was driven exclusively by a surge in customer searches, with users now able to instantly exchange both coins for 12 fiat currencies and more than 400 other tokens.

HOT Stories

SwissBorg announces the official listing of Litecoin (LTC) and Zcash (ZEC) with one-tap swaps for European users. Source: SwissBorg via X.comBehind the Swiss company's apparent boldness lies a pragmatic legal calculation and precise timing.

How Litecoin and Zcash expanded to Europe's regulated market despite a looming banAdding Zcash to a MiCA-regulated platform in September 2026 looks defiant, but does not violate the law. Unlike Monero, where anonymity is enabled by default, Zcash has a more flexible design. Its architecture separates transparent and shielded transactions.

SwissBorg, like other major players in the European market, including Coinbase, Kraken and Bitpanda, works strictly with transparent addresses. This allows it to comply with current financial monitoring requirements.

However, this legal gateway is temporary:

Hard deadline: On July 10, 2027, Article 79 of the EU's new Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR) takes effect.Consequences: From that date, licensed exchanges and custodians will be completely prohibited from servicing any assets with anonymization features, effectively closing off Zcash's access to Europe's regulated exchange sector.Noncustodial status: Holding Zcash in personal wallets and conducting P2P transactions will remain fully legal in the EU after 2027.Under these conditions, the asset has effectively forced its way into the European market: the listing coincided with Zcash's strongest resurgence in a decade. Against a backdrop of short liquidations, the resolution of longstanding issues with its issuance model and rumors surrounding spot Zcash ETFs, the coin rallied parabolically, gaining 45% in just one week and breaking through the psychological $1,000 mark.

You Might Also Like

For an exchange, ignoring that influx of liquidity would mean voluntarily handing trading fees to competitors. Litecoin (LTC) joined the platform alongside Zcash. Its optional MWEB privacy protocol previously sparked regulatory controversy, but the underlying mechanics of "digital silver" gave the listing the necessary balance of stability.

Ultimately, despite the looming 2027 ban, Zcash and Litecoin secured recognition from a regulated European platform. SwissBorg gave traders exactly what they were looking for at the market's peak, but with a firm, unspoken reminder: this window of opportunity will close in less than a year.