Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

On its third quarter of 2026 earnings call, held on Oct. 15, 2026, Interactive Brokers (IBKR -3.88%) announced record pre-tax profit and an annual dividend increase to $0.60 per share. The automated brokerage platform generated a 78% pre-tax margin while customer accounts grew over 30% worldwide. That operating leverage lets the business convert rising trading activity directly into shareholder cash. Three key takeaways from management highlight how the business continues to compound.

1. Record Profit Margin Powers Higher Dividend PayoutsInteractive Brokers converted revenue growth into expanding earnings, keeping its pre-tax margin, the share of revenue remaining before taxes, above 70% for eight consecutive quarters. Management used that extra cash to raise its annual dividend from $0.35 to $0.60 per share.

Pretax profit was a record, and our 78% pre-tax margin marked the eighth consecutive quarter with margins above 70%.
-- Milan Galik, President and CEO2. Artificial Intelligence Tools Accelerate Platform Automation and TradingManagement expanded its artificial intelligence tools by rolling out autonomous trading features. The updates let clients connect software through the model context protocol, a technical standard for software tools, to run automated trading strategies.

Our AI connector remains one of the fastest-adopted features we have ever introduced.
-- Milan Galik, President and CEO3. Wealth Management Offerings Target Displaced Financial AdvisorsInteractive Brokers is expanding its service for registered investment advisors, professional financial managers who direct client funds, by introducing tax-aware trading strategies. It's positioning its automated margin and lending infrastructure to win independent advisors seeking a new custodian.

Tax-aware accounts that use margin, short selling, and securities lending are a good fit for us.
-- Milan Galik, President and CEOLooking AheadCustomer accounts and total assets continue to expand across global markets, and management isn't hiding its satisfaction with the underlying momentum. The company holds structural advantages through its single global platform, low-cost margin lending infrastructure, and automated clearing capabilities. Management is watching regulatory expansion in local markets alongside client adoption of automated trading tools.

In conclusion, this was another financially strong quarter, reflecting our continued ability to grow our customer base and deliver on our core value proposition to customers, while simultaneously scaling the business.
-- Paul Jonathan Brody, CFOBy scaling software automation across account onboarding and customer service, Interactive Brokers expands its cost advantage as trading volumes grow. The firm's continuous platform upgrades position it to capture market share from traditional wealth custodians.

Our business strategy continues to be effective automating as much of the brokerage business as possible, continuously improving while expanding through new product introductions what we offer while minimizing what we charge.
-- Paul Jonathan Brody, CFOThe Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Interactive Brokers Group. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2027 $43.75 calls on Interactive Brokers Group and short January 2027 $46.25 calls on Interactive Brokers Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Even a tiny rise in bank deposit rates could slow stablecoin growth significantly. According to a recent study by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), a one basis point increase in bank interest rates reduces the growth in market capitalization of stablecoins by about 3% over ten weeks.

Given that the overall growth is at approximately 15% annually, this decrease would reduce the amount of growth to be approximately 12% annually. USD Coin [USDC] shows greater sensitivity, with growth declining 4.8 percentage points, compared with USDT’s 1.9-point reduction.

Source: BIS This difference highlights USDC’s closer ties to U.S. users and institutions. Moreover, higher bank yields make deposits more attractive relative to stablecoins. Yet, the effect remains specific to stablecoins, as researchers found no significant link with other cryptocurrencies.

Therefore, increasing interest rates may slow down the growth of new stable coins but will not eliminate the current supply of stablecoins.

Visa expands USDC payment rails On the other hand, while bank rates challenge stablecoin demand, Visa’s stablecoin expansion highlights growing real-world payment utility.

For example, Visa Direct currently allows payment of wages or purchases made using USDC-funded cross-border payouts in more than 180 countries. Inyo Global is their first partner.

This feature may provide a method for obtaining additional demand for stablecoins beyond simply trading or using decentralized finance.

It should also allow businesses to draw upon available funds at any time, avoiding reliance on banking hours or correspondent networks.

Source: Businesswire At present, there are still over $300 billion in outstanding stablecoin capitalization. If Visa continues to expand its service to include more countries and/or additional banks, it appears possible that additional demand for stablecoins may develop.

However, if the rate of adoption is slower than expected, stablecoin holders who do not earn interest on their stablecoins may need to consider alternative forms of stablecoins. Some of these alternative forms of stablecoins are already paying interest on idle money.

USDC payment activity accelerates Visa’s dollar-based stablecoin settlement volume is already at an annualized run rate of $20 billion. That represents more than a 15-fold increase compared with last year.

That data suggests that stablecoins are shifting from purely speculative holdings to being used for actual payments.

Still, according to DeFiLlama data, USDC total circulating supply stands at $72.6 billion. That said, measuring how much USDC is involved in transactional activity is key to determining whether stablecoins are actually supporting commerce or simply accumulating wealth.

Source: DeFiLlama If the amount of USDC used in settlements grows faster than the circulating supply of USDC, it could begin to counteract some of the loss in demand due to increasing deposit rates at banks.

For this trend to continue, merchants and others will need to continue processing multiple transactions using prefunded USDC balances.

Final Summary Stablecoin growth faces pressure as rising bank deposit rates make traditional savings more attractive, slowing market capitalization expansion.

USD Coin [USDC] payment adoption could support stablecoin demand as Visa’s settlement volume exceeds a $20 billion annualized run rate.

Theta Network has partnered with telecom firm Weaver Labs, which will use Theta's decentralized GPU network as an AI compute resource for its Cell-Stack platform. THETA is down about 16% on the week.

Theta Network has announced a partnership with Weaver Labs, a blockchain-linked telecom company. Under the deal, Weaver will use Theta's decentralized GPU network as an AI compute resource for Cell-Stack, its connectivity platform. The native $THETA token is down nearly 17% over the past week.

What the partnership coversThe announcement was made on October 7. In its own words, Theta described Cell-Stack as

Weaver Labs is a telecom software company. Its website describes Cell-Stack as The platform has already been tested in a live venue setting.

Theta's side of the arrangement is its EdgeCloud offering. The deal is meant to let venues run AI workloads such as video and analytics using distributed GPUs, without the need for large new hardware deployments on site.

THETA price actionThe token has not reacted positively to the news. Other trackers show a smaller weekly decline, which reflects differences in timing and data sources. The same analysis noted that

That suggests the weekly decline is linked more to broader market conditions than to the partnership itself. Whether the deal translates into sustained demand for Theta's GPU network will depend on how many venues adopt the combined offering and how much compute they use.

Sources:

TradingView News: Theta Network Partners With Weaver LabsCoinGecko: Theta Network (THETA) price dataSoccerex: Transforming Stadium Connectivity with Cell-Stack

Hyperliquid (HYPE) holders have lost 15% in a month as the token fell harder than Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana. Yet analysts are more bullish on it than on any other major cryptocurrency, according to CryptoQuant’s ranking of analysts.

HYPE traded at $76.55 on Sunday, about 22% below its September 23 record of $97.96. The token is worth roughly $17 billion.

Hyperliquid (HYPE) Price Performance. Source: BeInCryptoWhy is HYPE Falling Harder than the Market?Over the same 30 days, Bitcoin (BTC) was flat, while Ethereum (ETH) and Solana (SOL) each lost about 9%.

One cause is specific to HYPE. On October 6, Hyperliquid’s team received 3.75 million HYPE, then worth about $340 million, in a scheduled payout, according to unlock tracker Tokenomist.

A co-founder said the batch would be sold off-exchange to one institutional buyer. Neither the buyer nor the price was disclosed.

That payout was worth nearly five times the $71 million Hyperliquid generated for buybacks over the past 30 days, DefiLlama data shows.

The platform, a venue for trading crypto futures, routes about 99% of trading fees into daily HYPE purchases, according to CoinShares.

Traders betting on higher prices with borrowed money lost $688.56 million to forced closures in one day this month, BeInCrypto reported in its Hyperliquid whale coverage.

How Bullish are Analysts on HYPE?CryptoQuant scores how strongly analysts lean bullish against each coin’s own recent history. HYPE topped its ranking at 2.3 standard deviations above normal. BNB, Solana, Bitcoin, and Cardano (ADA) followed.

Analysts Are Most Bullish on Hyperliquid. Source: Ki Young Ju/X “The most bullish crypto asset by analyst sentiment is $HYPE,” noted Ki Young Ju, founder and CEO of CryptoQuant.

The leading call on the firm’s chart targets $100 to $120.

By raw share, HYPE is not the most backed. CryptoQuant’s page shows 90% of tracked analysts bullish on HYPE, against 100% for ADA and 92% for Uniswap (UNI).

HYPE Becomes Crypto’s Most Bullish Bet as Price Drops 15% in a MonthHistory offers a contrast. HYPE’s last big pullback, from about $75 in early June to near $52 in August, came as analyst sentiment turned bearish on CryptoQuant’s chart. This time, sentiment has stayed bullish through the drop.

For holders, two figures now test the bull case. One is whether daily buybacks can absorb selling. The other is $75.14, a support level flagged in BeInCrypto’s weekend analysis.

HYPE trades less than $1.50 above it, per the Hyperliquid price page.

Stacks has laid out its fourth-quarter game plan, and it centers on getting more Bitcoin locked into its system.

The Bitcoin layer 2 protocol says Q4 will focus on growing BTC bonds, putting that BTC to work in ecosystem apps, and shipping the Epoch 4.1 network upgrade in early December.

The priorities arrived alongside the protocol’s Q3 Ecosystem Report, released on October 15, 2026.

Monthly bonds and a December upgrade Stacks plans to run Bitcoin Staking bonding periods on a monthly schedule. The first of these monthly windows, Bond 3, is slated to open around November 10, 2026.

Bitcoin Staking has drawn 735 BTC in total across its first two phases. That figure splits into 250 BTC from the inaugural Genesis Bond and 505 BTC from Period 2.

The other big Q4 item is Epoch 4.1, the next network upgrade, which Stacks is targeting for early December. Epoch 4.1 will make Clarity 7 the default for new smart contracts on the network.

Stacks says the exact activation block height will be announced 30 days ahead of time.

Staking growth and a leadership shift The Q3 report also pointed to a jump in STX staking. After the PoX-5 upgrade, the amount of staked STX climbed from 392 million to 493 million, an increase of more than 25%.

STX rose approximately 50% over the four weeks leading to October 13, 2026, outperforming Bitcoin across that stretch. The research findings tie that outperformance to increased institutional participation in liquid staking.

The report landed alongside a leadership change. Stacks founder Muneeb Ali transitioned to CEO of Stacks Labs as the report was released.

With the new role came a long-range strategic vision branded the “Satoshi Upgrades.” The plan aims to expand Bitcoin’s capabilities in three areas: capital markets, privacy, and post-quantum security, with a timeline running through 2030.

What this means for Stacks and BTC holders For developers, Epoch 4.1 is the item to circle on the calendar. Clarity 7 becoming the default for new contracts means teams building in December and beyond should plan around the updated version. The 30-day notice on the activation block height gives node operators, app teams, and anyone running infrastructure a month of notice before the switch flips.

Stacks is juggling a new bonding cadence, an app-integration push, a December upgrade, and a CEO transition, all in a single quarter.

The near-term scorecard is simple: watch Bond 3 intake around November 10, watch for the Epoch 4.1 block height announcement, and watch whether the BTC flowing into Stacks starts showing up inside actual apps.

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

TLDR: ONDO is described by the Ondo Foundation as a governance token for the Ondo DAO and Flux Finance. Published risk disclosures say ONDO holders have no shareholder rights or claim to company dividends.  Andreou asks for a clear mechanism, enforceable scope and measurable benefit linking products to holders.  Ondo’s Solana tokenized assets passed $500M, and Ondo Stocks reached $1B TVL and $18B in volume.  The ONDO token faces a fresh debate over what its holders actually own as Ondo expands its tokenized finance business. Questions have emerged over how product growth translates into value for token holders.

Meanwhile, tokenized assets tied to Ondo on Solana reportedly crossed $500 million. The two views reflect a wider discussion about the link between platform adoption and governance token demand. Both positions depend on how the token is defined in Ondo’s published documents.

What the ONDO Token Represents The Ondo Foundation describes ONDO as a governance token for the Ondo DAO and Flux Finance. Holders therefore take part in decisions tied to those two areas. The ONDO token is not presented as a claim on company revenue.

Giannis Andreou raised the question in a post on X. He asked how the success of Ondo’s products reaches someone holding the token.

🏦 $ONDO BULLS: WHAT EXACTLY DOES THE TOKEN HOLDER OWN?

Ondo could become an important business in tokenized finance.

Institutions could adopt its products. Assets under management could grow. Distribution could expand across wallets, exchanges and financial platforms.

My… pic.twitter.com/F8tbhdRGjE

— Giannis Andreou (@gandreou007) October 18, 2026

He pointed to the Foundation’s token-sale risk disclosures. Those disclosures state that holding the token provides no shareholder rights. They also exclude rights to company dividends and distributions.

Andreou added that a customer buying a tokenized financial product acquires something different from an ONDO buyer.

The yield or economic rights attached to a product do not automatically belong to the governance token holder. Governance rights and product economics therefore sit in separate categories.

What Would Support a Bullish Case Andreou acknowledged that governance can carry value. He also noted that future changes could strengthen the token’s role. Market demand may rise as the ecosystem grows. However, he asked that each of those arguments be evaluated separately.

He wants supporters to identify the existing mechanism, its enforceable scope, and the measurable economic benefit for holders.

If a thesis relies on a future governance decision, he asked that the dependency be explained. He also asked who holds the power to deliver that decision.

According to Andreou, a documented link between product success and durable demand for the ONDO token would change his view. He said numbers should show why that link matters. This standard applies to any claim that product growth benefits holders.

Solana Milestone Adds Another Angle Niels offered a separate view in a post on X. He reported that ONDO crossed $500 million in tokenized assets on Solana. Ondo brought its tokenized stocks to the network only in January. The launch started with more than 200 U.S. stocks and ETFs.

$ONDO crossed $500M in tokenized assets on Solana.

Ondo only brought its tokenized stocks to Solana in January, starting with 200+ U.S. stocks and ETFs.

Since then, it has expanded 24/7 minting and redemption on Solana, while the wider Ondo Stocks platform has grown past $1B…

— Niels (@Web3Niels) October 18, 2026

Since then, Ondo has expanded 24/7 minting and redemption on Solana. Niels added that the wider Ondo Stocks platform has passed $1 billion in TVL. Cumulative volume has reached $18 billion in under eight months.

Niels described the pace of cross-chain expansion as hard to ignore. His post centers on platform scale. Andreou’s post centers on how the ONDO token captures benefits from that scale. Both posts therefore frame the same debate from different sides.

New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - October 18, 2026) - WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Bank of America Corporation (NYSE: BAC) resulting from allegations that Bank of America may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Bank of America securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/bank-of-america-corporation/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: After market hours on October 13, 2026, Fox Business published an article entitled "Bank of America hit with $1.2B in penalties over money laundering compliance failures". The article stated that the "Treasury Department announced approximately $1.21 billion in penalties against Bank of America over longstanding anti-money laundering failures and U.S. sanctions violations." Further the article stated that regulators "found the bank failed to adequately investigate trillions of dollars in potentially suspicious transactions despite knowing about significant compliance deficiencies."

On this news, Bank of America stock fell 4.7% on October 14, 2026.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

-------------------------------

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/319498

Source: The Rosen Law Firm PA

Ready to Announce with Confidence?
Send us a message and a member of our TMX Newsfile team will contact you to discuss your needs.

Contact Us

First Phase 1 data for sofetabart mipitecan, Lilly's investigational FRα-targeting ADC, in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer to be featured in a rapid oral presentation

Updated first-line data for olomorasib, an investigational therapy targeting KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC, to be featured in a rapid oral presentation

Updated Phase 3 data for selpercatinib versus cabozantinib or vandetanib in advanced, kinase inhibitor-naïve, RET-mutant MTC to be shared in a proffered paper

, /PRNewswire/ -- Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE: LLY) today announced that new data from across its oncology portfolio will be presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress, taking place October 23–27 in Madrid, Spain. Highlights include new Phase 1 data in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (PSOC) for sofetabart mipitecan (Sofe-M), Lilly's investigational FRα-targeting antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), in combination with bevacizumab, along with updated findings for olomorasib, Retevmo (selpercatinib), and Verzenio (abemaciclib) in lung, thyroid, and breast cancers, respectively. 

Key Presentation Highlights:

Sofetabart mipitecan (Sofe-M; FRα-targeting ADC): A rapid oral presentation on first Phase 1 data for sofetabart mipitecan plus bevacizumab in patients with PSOC. These data support the ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial of Sofe-M in PSOC.

Olomorasib (investigational KRAS G12C inhibitor):
A rapid oral presentation on an updated integrated analysis from the Phase 1/2 LOXO-RAS-20001 trial and the safety lead-in portion of the Phase 3 SUNRAY-01 trial, assessing olomorasib in combination with chemoimmunotherapy (pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and platinum) as potential first-line treatments for patients with advanced/metastatic KRAS G12C-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These data support the ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial of olomorasib in first-line KRAS G12C-mutant lung cancer.

Retevmo (selpercatinib; RET kinase inhibitor): A proffered paper presentation on updated results from the Phase 3 LIBRETTO-531 study of selpercatinib versus cabozantinib or vandetanib (C/V) in advanced, kinase inhibitor-naïve, RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). These data have supported global approvals of Retevmo in this treatment setting.

Verzenio (abemaciclib; CDK4/6 inhibitor): A rapid oral presentation on overall survival data from the Phase 3 postMONARCH trial of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer following progression on a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor and endocrine therapy. These data support the abemaciclib plus imlunestrant results in the EMBER-3 trial and add to the evidence-based practice of switching endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitor at progression in metastatic breast cancer.

"Lilly's presentations at ESMO reflect both the breadth of our oncology portfolio and the focus behind it: following compelling science wherever it has the potential to change care," said Jacob Van Naarden, executive vice president and president of Lilly Oncology. "We're especially encouraged by the data we're sharing for sofetabart mipitecan in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, which build on what we've seen with this medicine in platinum-resistant disease and mark a critical step forward as we advance the ongoing Phase 3 FRAmework-01 study across both settings. Our updated first-line data for olomorasib in KRAS G12C-mutant lung cancer are very promising, with clinical activity and a safety profile consistent with earlier findings, which reinforce the importance of targeted therapy for patients from the outset of their treatment journey. Alongside new data in thyroid and breast cancers, these presentations represent meaningful momentum toward improving care for people with cancer."

A full list of abstract titles and viewing details are listed below:

Abstract Title

Author

Presentation
Type/#

Session Title

Session Date/Time

(CET)

Sofe-M (sofetabart mipitecan; investigational ADC targeting FRα):

Model-informed Phase 3 dose
selection for antibody-drug conjugate
(ADC) sofetabart mipitecan (Sofe-M):
First prospective application of a
clinical utility index (CUI) 

Jean-
Sebastien
Frenel

Poster
#1016P

Poster display
session

Friday, October 23

15:15-16:00

Efficacy and safety
of sofetabart mipitecan (Sofe-M), a
folate receptor alpha (FRα) targeting
antibody drug conjugate (ADC), plus
bevacizumab in recurrent platinum
sensitive ovarian cancer (PSOC) 

Chrisann Kyi

Rapid oral
#1246RO

Rapid oral 2:
Gynecological
cancers

Saturday, October 24

8:30-10:00

Sofetabart mipitecan (Sofe-M) in
patients ≥65 y with platinum-resistant
and -sensitive ovarian cancer
(PROC/PSOC) from the first-in-human
phase 1 study 

Ana Oaknin

Poster
#1288P

Poster display
session

Monday, October 26

12:00-12:45

Olomorasib (investigational KRAS G12C inhibitor)

First-line (1L) olomorasib +
chemoimmunotherapy (Chemo-IO) in
KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC: Updated
results from the LOXO-RAS-20001 and
SUNRAY-01 trials 

Marcelo V.
Negrao

Rapid oral
#2652RO

Rapid oral 2:
NSCLC, metastatic

Sunday,

October 25

8:30-10:00

First-line (1L) olomorasib +
pembrolizumab in KRAS G12C-mutant
NSCLC: Updated results from LOXO-
RAS-20001 and SUNRAY-01 

Melissa L.
Johnson

Poster
#2683P

Poster display
session

Monday, October 26

12:00-12:45

Retevmo (selpercatinib; RET kinase inhibitor)

Updated results of randomized Phase
3 study of selpercatinib vs
cabozantinib or vandetanib (C/V) in
advanced, kinase inhibitor-naïve, RET-
mutant medullary thyroid cancer
(MTC) 

Jaume
Capdevila

Proffered paper
#4208O

Proffered paper:
NETs and
endocrine tumors

Monday, October 26

10:15-11:45

Verzenio (abemaciclib; CDK4/6 inhibitor)

Association of p27 V109G SNP zygosity
with outcomes
and abemaciclib treatment effect in
HR+, HER2– high-risk early breast
cancer: results from monarchE 

Miguel
Quintela-
Fandino

Poster
#4498P

Poster display
session

Friday, October 23

15:15-16:00

Overall survival from the Phase
3 postMONARCH trial of abemaciclib +
fulvestrant vs placebo + fulvestrant for
HR+, HER2– advanced breast cancer
following progression on a prior
CDK4/6 inhibitor + endocrine therapy 

Kevin Kalinsky

Rapid oral
#1RO

Rapid oral 1:
Breast cancer,
advanced stage

Saturday, October 24

10:15-11:45

Three-month persistence and
adherence to adjuvant abemaciclib in
high-risk HR+, HER2– early breast
cancer: real world data from ABSIDE-S 

Isabel Blancas
López-Barajas

ePoster
#1933eP

ePoster session

Friday, October 23

8:00

Treatment persistence and clinical
characteristics in patients with HR+,
HER2–, high-risk early breast cancer
(EBC) treated with abemaciclib: A
multi-country real-world study  

Hitomi Sakai

ePoster
#615eP

ePoster session

Friday, October 23

8:00

For more information on Lilly's oncology pipeline, click here.

About Sofetabart Mipitecan
Sofetabart mipitecan (Sofe-M; LY4170156) is composed of an Fc-silent, folate receptor alpha (FRα) specific humanized monoclonal antibody linked to exatecan, a topoisomerase I inhibitor, via a proprietary cleavable polysarcosine linker (PSARlink). Sofe-M was designed to target FRα across all expression levels with an improved therapeutic index. FRα is a cell-surface glycoprotein encoded by the gene FOLR1 that binds to the essential nutrients folic acid and reduced folates, bringing them into cells to facilitate cell division and growth.1,2 FRα is overexpressed in many solid tumors such as ovarian and endometrial cancers.1,3,4 Sofe-M has received Breakthrough Therapy Designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) and is currently being evaluated in the Phase 3 FRAmework-01 trial. The study is being conducted in partnership with the European Network for Gynaecological Oncological Trial groups (ENGOT – lead groups GINECO/NOGGO e.V.), the GOG Foundation (GOG), and the Asia-Pacific Gynecologic Oncology Trials Group (APGOT).

About Olomorasib
Olomorasib (LY3537982) is an investigational, oral, potent, and highly selective second-generation inhibitor of the KRAS G12C protein. KRAS is the most common oncogene across all tumor types, and KRAS G12C mutations occur in 13% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and 1–3% of patients with other solid tumors.5 Olomorasib is a highly potent covalent inhibitor with potential for greater than 90% target occupancy, which may allow for safer combinations with less toxicity.6

Olomorasib is currently being studied in KRAS G12C-mutant cancers in combination with pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, in combination with immunotherapy for the treatment of resected and unresectable NSCLC, and as monotherapy and in combinations in other advanced solid tumors (NCT06119581, NCT06890598, and NCT04956640).

About Retevmo
Retevmo (selpercatinib, formerly known as LOXO-292) (pronounced reh-TEHV-moh) is a highly selective and potent RET kinase inhibitor with central nervous system (CNS) activity. Retevmo may affect both tumor cells and healthy cells, which can result in side effects. RET-driver alterations are predominantly mutually exclusive from other oncogenic drivers. Retevmo is a U.S. FDA-approved oral prescription medicine, 120 mg or 160 mg dependent on weight (<50 kg or ≥50 kg, respectively), taken twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.7

INDICATIONS FOR RETEVMO (selpercatinib)
RETEVMO is a kinase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of:

Adult and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older with advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) with a RET mutation, as detected by an FDA-approved test, who require systemic therapy IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION FOR RETEVMO (selpercatinib)

Hepatotoxicity: Serious hepatic adverse reactions occurred in 4.6% of patients treated with Retevmo. Increased aspartate aminotransferase (AST) occurred in 62% of patients, including Grade 3 or 4 events in 11% and increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT) occurred in 58% of patients, including Grade 3 or 4 events in 13%. Monitor ALT and AST prior to initiating Retevmo, every 2 weeks during the first 3 months, then monthly thereafter and as clinically indicated. Withhold, reduce dose, or permanently discontinue Retevmo based on severity.

Severe, life-threatening, and fatal interstitial lung disease (ILD)/pneumonitis can occur in patients treated with Retevmo. ILD/pneumonitis occurred in 3% of patients who received Retevmo, including 0.3% with Grade 3 or 4 events, and 0.2% with fatal reactions. Monitor for pulmonary symptoms indicative of ILD/pneumonitis. Withhold Retevmo and promptly investigate for ILD in any patient who presents with acute or worsening of respiratory symptoms which may be indicative of ILD (e.g., dyspnea, cough, and fever). Withhold, reduce dose, or permanently discontinue Retevmo based on severity of confirmed ILD.

Hypertension occurred in 43% of patients, including Grade 3 hypertension in 20% and Grade 4 in one (0.1%) patient. Overall, 6.4% had their dose interrupted, 1.5% had their dose reduced, and 0.2% discontinued Retevmo for hypertension. Treatment-emergent hypertension was most commonly managed with anti-hypertension medications. Do not initiate Retevmo in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Optimize blood pressure prior to initiating Retevmo. Monitor blood pressure after 1 week, at least monthly thereafter, and as clinically indicated. Initiate or adjust anti-hypertensive therapy as appropriate. Withhold, reduce dose, or permanently discontinue Retevmo based on severity.

Retevmo can cause concentration-dependent QT interval prolongation. An increase in QTcF interval to >500 ms was measured in 8% of patients and an increase in the QTcF interval of at least 60 ms over baseline was measured in 22% of patients. Retevmo has not been studied in patients with clinically significant active cardiovascular disease or recent myocardial infarction. Monitor patients who are at significant risk of developing QTc prolongation, including patients with known long QT syndromes, clinically significant bradyarrhythmias, and severe or uncontrolled heart failure. Assess QT interval, electrolytes, and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) at baseline and periodically during treatment, adjusting frequency based upon risk factors including diarrhea.

Correct hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and hypocalcemia prior to initiating Retevmo and during treatment. Monitor the QT interval more frequently when Retevmo is concomitantly administered with strong and moderate CYP3A inhibitors or drugs known to prolong QTc interval. Withhold and dose reduce or permanently discontinue Retevmo based on the severity.

Serious, including fatal, hemorrhagic events can occur with Retevmo. Grade ≥3 hemorrhagic events occurred in 4.3% of patients treated with Retevmo including 4 (0.5%) patients with fatal hemorrhagic events, including cerebral hemorrhage (n=2), tracheostomy site hemorrhage and hemoptysis (1 each). Permanently discontinue Retevmo in patients with severe or life-threatening hemorrhage.

Retevmo can cause hypersensitivity, including severe skin reactions such as Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. All grade hypersensitivity occurred in 6% of patients receiving Retevmo, including Grade 3 in 2%. The median time to onset was 1.9 weeks (range: 5 days to 6.5 years). Signs and symptoms of hypersensitivity included fever, rash and arthralgias or myalgias with concurrent decreased platelets or transaminitis. Stevens-Johnson Syndrome has been observed in the post-marketing setting. Discontinue Retevmo in patients with Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. If hypersensitivity occurs, withhold Retevmo and begin corticosteroids at a dose of 1 mg/kg prednisone (or equivalent). Upon resolution of the event, resume Retevmo at a reduced dose and increase the dose of Retevmo by 1 dose level each week as tolerated until reaching the dose taken prior to onset of hypersensitivity. Continue steroids until patient reaches target dose and then taper. Permanently discontinue Retevmo for recurrent hypersensitivity.

Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) occurred in 0.9% of patients with medullary thyroid carcinoma and 0.3% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving Retevmo. Patients may be at risk of TLS if they have rapidly growing tumors, a high tumor burden, renal dysfunction, or dehydration. Closely monitor patients at risk, consider appropriate prophylaxis including hydration, and treat as clinically indicated.

Impaired wound healing can occur in patients who receive drugs that inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling pathway. Therefore, Retevmo has the potential to adversely affect wound healing. Withhold Retevmo for at least 7 days prior to elective surgery. Do not administer for at least 2 weeks following major surgery and until adequate wound healing. The safety of resumption of Retevmo after resolution of wound healing complications has not been established.

Retevmo can cause hypothyroidism. Hypothyroidism occurred in 15% of patients treated with Retevmo; all reactions were Grade 1 or 2. Hypothyroidism occurred in 15% of patients (59/390) with thyroid cancer and 14% of patients (65/467) with other solid tumors including NSCLC. Monitor thyroid function before treatment with Retevmo and periodically during treatment. Treat with thyroid hormone replacement as clinically indicated. Withhold Retevmo until clinically stable or permanently discontinue Retevmo based on severity.

Based on data from animal reproduction studies and its mechanism of action, Retevmo can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Administration of selpercatinib to pregnant rats during organogenesis at maternal exposures that were approximately equal to those observed at the recommended human dose of 160 mg twice daily resulted in embryolethality and malformations. Advise pregnant women and females of reproductive potential of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential and males with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with Retevmo and for 1 week after the last dose. There are no data on the presence of selpercatinib or its metabolites in human milk or on their effects on the breastfed child or on milk production. Because of the potential for serious adverse reactions in breastfed children, advise women not to breastfeed during treatment with Retevmo and for 1 week after the last dose.

Slipped capital femoral epiphysis/slipped upper femoral epiphysis in pediatric patients (SCFE/SUFE) occurred in 1 adolescent (2.8% of 36 patients) receiving Retevmo in LIBRETTO-121 and 1 adolescent patient (0.5% of 193 patients) receiving Retevmo in LIBRETTO-531. Monitor patients for symptoms indicative of SCFE/SUFE and treat as medically and surgically appropriate.

Severe adverse reactions (Grade 3-4) occurring in ≥20% of patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-001 were hypertension (20%), diarrhea (6.2%), prolonged QT interval (5%), fatigue (4.7%), musculoskeletal pain (4.1%), dyspnea (4.1%), hemorrhage (3.9%), abdominal pain (3.5%), vomiting (2.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2%), nausea (1.9%), headache (1.8%), edema (1.3%), decreased appetite (0.9%), constipation (0.8%), rash (0.8%), and dizziness (0.5%).

Severe adverse reactions (Grade 3-4) occurring in ≥15% of patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-121 were increased weight (11%), vomiting (8%), constipation (6%), diarrhea (2.8%), nausea (2.8%), upper respiratory tract infection (2.8%), and urinary tract infection (2.8%).

Severe adverse reactions (Grade 3-4) occurring in ≥15% of patients who received Retevmo or chemotherapy with or without pembrolizumab in LIBRETTO-431 were hypertension (20% vs 3.1%), electrocardiogram QT prolonged (9% vs 0%), fatigue (3.2% vs 5%), edema (2.5% vs 0%), rash (1.9% vs 1.0%), diarrhea (1.3% vs 2.0%), abdominal pain (0.6% vs 2.0%), pyrexia (0.6% vs 0%), COVID19 infection (0.6% vs 0%), constipation (0% vs 1.0%), nausea (0% vs 1.0%), vomiting (0% vs 1.0%), and decreased appetite (0% vs 2.0%).

Severe adverse reactions (Grade 3-4) occurring in ≥10% of patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-531 were (Retevmo vs cabozantinib / vandetanib) hypertension (19% vs 18%), electrocardiogram QT prolonged (4.7% vs 2.1%), fatigue (4.1% vs 9%), diarrhea (3.1% vs 8%), rash (1.6% vs 4.1%), pyrexia (1.0% vs 0%), nausea (1.0% vs 5%), dry mouth (0.5% vs 1.0%), abdominal pain (0.5% vs 2.1%), stomatitis (0.5% vs 13%), headache (0.5% vs 0%), and decreased appetite (0.5% vs 5%).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 58% of patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-001. The most frequently reported serious adverse reactions (in ≥2% of patients) were pneumonia, hemorrhage, abdominal pain, dyspnea, pleural effusion, sepsis, musculoskeletal pain, hyponatremia, vomiting, diarrhea, and increased blood creatinine. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 3% of patients in LIBRETTO-001; fatal adverse reactions included sepsis (n=6), respiratory failure (n=5), hemorrhage (n=4), pneumonia (n=4), cardiac arrest (n=3), pneumonitis (n=2), cardiac failure (n=2), sudden death (n=1), cerebral infarction (n=1), and dyspnea (n=1).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 42% of patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-121. Serious adverse reactions occurring in more than 1 patient were vomiting and fracture (2 patients each).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 35% of patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-431. The most frequently reported serious adverse reactions (≥2% of patients) were pleural effusion and abnormal hepatic function. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 4.4% of patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-431; fatal adverse reactions included myocardial infarction (n=2), respiratory failure (n=2), cardiac arrest, malnutrition, and sudden death (n=1 each).

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 22% of patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-531. The most frequent serious adverse reactions were pneumonia and pyrexia (n=3 each), and hypertension and urinary tract infection (n=2 each). Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 2.1% of patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-531; fatal adverse reactions included COVID19, diabetic ketoacidosis, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and sudden death (n=1 each).

Common adverse reactions (all grades) occurring in ≥20% of patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-001 were musculoskeletal pain (59%), edema (53%), diarrhea (52%), fatigue (49%), dry mouth (44%), hypertension (43%), abdominal pain (39%), rash (38%), nausea (36%), constipation (35%), cough (30%), headache (30%), vomiting (29%), dyspnea (28%), hemorrhage (26%), decreased appetite (23%), dizziness (22%), prolonged QT interval (21%), and urinary tract infection (20%).

Common adverse reactions (all grades) occurring in ≥15% of patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-121 were musculoskeletal pain (58%), diarrhea (47%), nausea (42%), hemorrhage (39%), pyrexia (39%), abdominal pain (36%), headache (33%), vomiting (31%), fatigue (31%), cough (31%), rash (28%), coronavirus infection (28%), upper respiratory tract infection (28%), edema (25%), constipation (22%), oropharyngeal pain (22%), hypothyroidism (22%), urinary tract infection (19%), and increased weight (19%).

Common adverse reactions (all grades) occurring in ≥15% of patients who received Retevmo or chemotherapy with or without pembrolizumab in LIBRETTO-431 were hypertension (48% vs 7%), diarrhea (44% vs 24%), edema (41% vs 28%), dry mouth (39% vs 6%), rash (33% vs 30%), fatigue (32% vs 50%), abdominal pain (25% vs 19%), musculoskeletal pain (25% vs 28%), constipation (22% vs 40%), electrocardiogram QT prolonged (20% vs 1.0%), COVID19 infection (19% vs 18%), stomatitis (18% vs 16%), decreased appetite (17% vs 34%), nausea (13% vs 44%), vomiting (13% vs 23%), and pyrexia (13% vs 23%).

Common adverse reactions (all grades) occurring in ≥10% of patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-531 (Retevmo vs cabozantinib / vandetanib) were hypertension (43% vs 41%), edema (33% vs 5%), dry mouth (32% vs 10%), fatigue (28% vs 47%), diarrhea (26% vs 61%), headache (23% vs 21%), rash (19% vs 27%), abdominal pain (18% vs 21%), constipation (16% vs 12%), erectile dysfunction (16% vs 0%), stomatitis (14% vs 42%), electrocardiogram QT prolonged (14% vs 13%), pyrexia (12% vs 2.1%), decreased appetite (12% vs 28%), hypothyroidism (11% vs 21%), and nausea (10% vs 32%).

Laboratory abnormalities (all grades ≥20%; Grade 3-4) worsening from baseline in patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-001, were increased AST (62%; 11%), decreased calcium (61%; 7%), decreased albumin (61%; 3.6%), increased ALT (58%; 13%), increased glucose (56%; 4.0%), decreased lymphocytes (56%; 22%), increased creatinine (51%; 3.6%), decreased sodium (49%; 13%), increased alkaline phosphatase (43%; 4.4%), decreased platelets (41%; 4.0%), increased potassium (39%; 3.5%), decreased glucose (39%; 1.5%), increased total cholesterol (37%; 1.7%), decreased magnesium (37%; 0.7%), decreased hemoglobin (36%; 4.1%), increased bilirubin (32%; 2.9%), decreased neutrophils (27%; 3.8%), and decreased phosphate (25%; 5%).

Laboratory abnormalities (all grades ≥15%; Grade 3-4) worsening from baseline in patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-121 were decreased calcium (61%; 11%), increased ALT (58%; 8%), decreased albumin (53%; 0%), increased alkaline phosphatase (50%; 0%), increased AST (50%; 2.8%), increased bilirubin (31%; 2.8%), increased cholesterol (28%, 0%), decreased magnesium (28%; 6%), increased potassium (28%; 2.8%), increased creatinine (19%, 2.8%), decreased potassium (19%, 6%), decreased sodium (17%, 0%), decreased neutrophils (40%; 8%), decreased hemoglobin (36%; 11%), increased hemoglobin (33%, 2.8%), decreased platelets (28%; 2.8%), and decreased lymphocytes (28%; 14%).

Laboratory abnormalities (all grades ≥20%; Grade 3-4) worsening from baseline in patients who received Retevmo or chemotherapy with or without pembrolizumab in LIBRETTO-431 were increased ALT (81%; 21% vs 63%; 4.1%), increased AST (77%; 10% vs 46%; 0%), decreased calcium (53%; 1.9% vs 24%; 1.0%), decreased platelets (53%; 3.2% vs 39%; 5%), decreased lymphocytes (53%; 8% vs 64%; 15%), decreased neutrophils (53%; 2.0% vs 58%; 11%), increased bilirubin (52%; 1.3% vs 9%; 0%), increased alkaline phosphatase (35%; 1.3% vs 22%; 0%), decreased sodium (31%; 3.2% vs 41%; 2.1%), decreased albumin (25%; 0% vs 5%; 0%), increased blood creatinine (23%; 0% vs 21%; 0%), decreased hemoglobin (21%; 0% vs 91%; 5%), decreased potassium (17%; 1.3% vs 15%; 1.0%), and decreased magnesium (16%; 0.6% vs 8%; 0%).

Laboratory abnormalities (all grades ≥5%; Grade 3-4) worsening from baseline in patients who received Retevmo in LIBRETTO-531 (Retevmo vs cabozantinib / vandetanib) were decreased calcium (55%; 5% vs 62%; 11%), increased ALT (53%; 16% vs 72%; 7%), increased AST (47%; 5% vs 68%; 3.2%), decreased lymphocytes (41%; 18% vs 36%; 13%), increased alkaline phosphatase (37%; 6% vs 28%, 5%), increased bilirubin (32%; 1.1% vs 30%; 3.2%), decreased neutrophils (33%; 14% vs 42%; 19%), decreased platelets (28%; 1.1% vs 34%; 1.1%), increased creatinine (27%; 6% vs 16%; 8%), decreased sodium (20%; 3.2% vs 16%; 0%), decreased hemoglobin (18%; 2.1% vs 23%; 2.1%), decreased albumin (11%; 1.1% vs 7%; 0%), decreased magnesium (9%; 3.3% vs 26%; 9%), and decreased potassium (8%; 0% vs 22%; 4.4%).

Concomitant use of acid-reducing agents decreases selpercatinib plasma concentrations which may reduce Retevmo anti-tumor activity. Avoid concomitant use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 (H2) receptor antagonists, and locally acting antacids with Retevmo. If coadministration cannot be avoided, take Retevmo with food (with a PPI) or modify its administration time (with a H2 receptor antagonist or a locally acting antacid).

Concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inhibitors increases selpercatinib plasma concentrations which may increase the risk of Retevmo adverse reactions including QTc interval prolongation. Avoid concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inhibitors with Retevmo. If concomitant use of a strong or moderate CYP3A inhibitor cannot be avoided, reduce the Retevmo dosage as recommended and monitor the QT interval with ECGs more frequently.

Concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inducers decreases selpercatinib plasma concentrations which may reduce Retevmo anti-tumor activity. Avoid coadministration of Retevmo with strong and moderate CYP3A inducers.

Concomitant use of Retevmo with CYP2C8 and CYP3A substrates increases their plasma concentrations which may increase the risk of adverse reactions related to these substrates. Avoid coadministration of Retevmo with CYP2C8 and CYP3A substrates where minimal concentration changes may lead to increased adverse reactions. If coadministration cannot be avoided, follow recommendations for CYP2C8 and CYP3A substrates provided in their approved product labeling.

Retevmo is a P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and BCRP inhibitor. Concomitant use of Retevmo with P-gp or BCRP substrates increases their plasma concentrations, which may increase the risk of adverse reactions related to these substrates. Avoid coadministration of Retevmo with P-gp or BCRP substrates where minimal concentration changes may lead to increased adverse reactions. If coadministration cannot be avoided, follow recommendations for P-gp and BCRP substrates provided in their approved product labeling.

The safety and effectiveness of Retevmo have not been established in pediatric patients less than 2 years of age. The safety and effectiveness of Retevmo have been established in pediatric patients aged 2 years and older for the treatment of advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) with a RET mutation who require systemic therapy, advanced or metastatic thyroid cancer with a RET gene fusion who require systemic therapy and are radioactive iodine-refractory (if radioactive iodine is appropriate), and locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors with a RET gene fusion that have progressed on or following prior systemic treatment or who have no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

Monitor open growth plates in pediatric patients. Consider interrupting or discontinuing Retevmo if abnormalities occur.

No dosage modification is recommended for patients with mild to severe renal impairment (estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate [eGFR] ≥15 to 89 mL/min, estimated by Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD] equation). A recommended dosage has not been established for patients with end-stage renal disease.

Reduce the dose when administering Retevmo to patients with severe hepatic impairment (total bilirubin greater than 3 to 10 times upper limit of normal [ULN] and any AST). No dosage modification is recommended for patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment. Monitor for Retevmo-related adverse reactions in patients with hepatic impairment.

Retevmo (selpercatinib) is available as 40 mg and 80 mg capsules, and 40 mg, 80 mg, 120 mg, and 160 mg tablets.

SE HCP ISI All_JUL2026

Please see full Prescribing Information and Instructions for Use for Retevmo.

About Verzenio (abemaciclib)
Verzenio (abemaciclib) is approved to treat people with certain HR+, HER2– breast cancers in the adjuvant and advanced or metastatic settings. Verzenio is an oral tablet taken twice daily and available in strengths of 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and 200 mg. Discovered and developed by Lilly researchers, Verzenio was first approved in 2017 and is authorized for use in more than 90 countries around the world. For full details on indicated uses of Verzenio in HR+, HER2– breast cancer, please see full Prescribing Information, available at www.Verzenio.com.

INDICATIONS FOR VERZENIO 

Verzenio (abemaciclib) is a kinase inhibitor indicated8,9:

in combination with endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor) for the adjuvant treatment of adults with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence. in combination with an aromatase inhibitor as initial endocrine-based therapy for the treatment of adults with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. in combination with fulvestrant for the treatment of adults with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer with disease progression following endocrine therapy. in combination with Inluriyo for the treatment of adults with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative, estrogen receptor-1 (ESR1)-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer, as detected by an FDA-authorized test, with disease progression following at least one line of endocrine therapy. as monotherapy for the treatment of adults with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer with disease progression following endocrine therapy and prior chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION FOR VERZENIO (abemaciclib)
Severe diarrhea associated with dehydration and infection occurred in patients treated with Verzenio. Across five clinical trials in 3899 patients, diarrhea occurred in 81% to 90% of patients who received Verzenio. Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in 8% to 20% of patients receiving Verzenio. Most patients experienced diarrhea during the first month of Verzenio treatment. The median time to onset of the first diarrhea event ranged from 6 to 8 days; and the median duration of Grade 2 and Grade 3 diarrhea ranged from 6 to 11 days and 5 to 8 days, respectively. Across trials, 19% to 26% of patients with diarrhea required a Verzenio dose interruption and 13% to 23% required a dose reduction.

Instruct patients to start antidiarrheal therapy such as loperamide at the first sign of loose stools, increase oral fluids, and notify their healthcare provider for further instructions and appropriate follow-up. For Grade 3 or 4 diarrhea, or diarrhea that requires hospitalization, withhold Verzenio until resolution to ≤Grade 1, and then resume Verzenio at the next lower dose.

Neutropenia, including febrile neutropenia and fatal neutropenic sepsis, occurred in patients treated with Verzenio. Across five clinical trials in 3899 patients, neutropenia occurred in 37% to 51% of patients receiving Verzenio. A Grade ≥3 decrease in neutrophil count (based on laboratory findings) occurred in 19% to 32% of patients receiving Verzenio.

Across trials, the median time to first episode of Grade ≥3 neutropenia ranged from 29 days to 34 days, and the median duration of Grade ≥3 neutropenia ranged from 10 days to 16 days.

Febrile neutropenia has been reported in <1% of patients exposed to Verzenio across trials. Two deaths due to neutropenic sepsis were observed in MONARCH 2. Inform patients to promptly report any episodes of fever to their healthcare provider.

Monitor complete blood counts prior to the start of Verzenio therapy, every 2 weeks for the first 2 months, monthly for the next 2 months, and as clinically indicated. Dose interruption, dose reduction, or delay in starting treatment cycles is recommended for patients who develop Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia.

Severe, life-threatening, or fatal interstitial lung disease (ILD) or pneumonitis can occur in patients treated with Verzenio and other CDK4/6 inhibitors. In Verzenio-treated patients in early breast cancer (monarchE, N=2791), 3% of patients experienced ILD or pneumonitis of any grade: 0.4% were Grade 3 or 4 and there was one fatality (0.1%). In Verzenio-treated patients in advanced or metastatic breast cancer (N=1108) (MONARCH 1, MONARCH 2, MONARCH 3, EMBER-3), 3.2% of Verzenio-treated patients had ILD or pneumonitis of any grade: 0.5% had Grade 3 or 4, and 0.5% had fatal outcomes. Additional cases of ILD or pneumonitis have been observed in the postmarketing setting, with fatalities reported.

Monitor patients for pulmonary symptoms indicative of ILD or pneumonitis. Symptoms may include hypoxia, cough, dyspnea, or interstitial infiltrates on radiologic exams. Infectious, neoplastic, and other causes for such symptoms should be excluded by means of appropriate investigations.

Withhold or reduce dose for patients who develop persistent or recurrent Grade 2 ILD or pneumonitis. Permanently discontinue VERZENIO in all patients with Grade 3 or 4 ILD or pneumonitis.

Grade ≥3 increases in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (2% to 6%) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (2% to 3%) were reported in patients receiving Verzenio.

Across four clinical trials in 3767 patients (monarchE, MONARCH 2, MONARCH 3, EMBER-3), the median time to onset of Grade ≥3 ALT increases ranged from 57 to 87 days and the median time to resolution to Grade <3 was 13 to 14 days. The median time to onset of Grade ≥3 AST increases ranged from 71 to 185 days and the median time to resolution to Grade <3 ranged from 11 to 15 days.

Monitor liver function tests (LFTs) prior to the start of VERZENIO therapy, every 2 weeks for the first 2 months, monthly for the next 2 months, and as clinically indicated. Dose interruption, dose reduction, dose discontinuation, or delay in starting treatment cycles is recommended for patients who develop persistent or recurrent Grade 2, or any Grade 3 or Grade 4 hepatic transaminase elevation.

Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) were reported in 2% to 5% of patients treated with Verzenio across four clinical trials in 3767 patients (monarchE, MONARCH 2, MONARCH 3, EMBER-3). VTE events included deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, pelvic venous thrombosis, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, subclavian and axillary vein thrombosis, inferior vena cava thrombosis, jugular vein thrombosis, peripheral vein thrombosis and superficial vein thrombosis. In clinical trials, deaths due to VTE occurred in patients treated with Verzenio.

Verzenio has not been studied in patients with early breast cancer who had a history of VTE. Monitor patients for signs and symptoms of venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism and treat as medically appropriate. Dose interruption is recommended for early breast cancer patients with any grade VTE event and for advanced or metastatic breast cancer patients with a Grade 3 or 4 VTE event.

Verzenio can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman, based on findings from animal studies and the mechanism of action. In animal reproduction studies, administration of abemaciclib to pregnant rats during the period of organogenesis caused teratogenicity and decreased fetal weight at maternal exposures that were similar to the human clinical exposure based on area under the curve (AUC) at the maximum recommended human dose.

Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to a fetus. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with Verzenio and for 3 weeks after the last dose.

Verzenio can increase serum creatinine without affecting renal function. These increases were not associated with changes in glomerular function. In EMBER-3, creatinine increase occurred in 36% for all grades (Grade 3 or 4: 1.1%) of patients who received Inluriyo in combination with Verzenio. During Verzenio treatment, use alternative measures that are not based on serum creatinine to assess renal function such as BUN, cystatin C, or calculated GFR.

The most common adverse reactions (all grades, ≥10%) observed in monarchE for Verzenio plus tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor vs tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor, with a difference between arms of ≥2%, were diarrhea (84% vs 9%), infections (51% vs 39%), neutropenia (46% vs 6%), fatigue (41% vs 18%), leukopenia (38% vs 7%), nausea (30% vs 9%), anemia (24% vs 4%), headache (20% vs 15%), vomiting (18% vs 4.6%), stomatitis (14% vs 5%), lymphopenia (14% vs 3%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs 2%), decreased appetite (12% vs 2.4%), ALT increased (12% vs 6%), AST increased (12% vs 5%), dizziness (11% vs 7%), rash (11% vs 4.5%), and alopecia (11% vs 2.7%).

The most frequently reported ≥5% Grade 3 or 4 adverse reaction that occurred in the Verzenio arm vs the tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor arm of monarchE were neutropenia (19.6% vs 1%), leukopenia (11% vs <1%), diarrhea (8% vs 0.2%), and lymphopenia (5% vs <1%).

Lab abnormalities (all grades; Grade 3 or 4) for monarchE in ≥10% for Verzenio plus tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor with a difference between arms of ≥2% were increased serum creatinine (99% vs 91%; 0.5% vs <0.1%), decreased white blood cells (89% vs 28%; 19.1% vs 1.1%), decreased neutrophil count (84% vs 23%; 18.7% vs 1.9%), anemia (68% vs 17%; 1% vs .1%), decreased lymphocyte count (59% vs 24%; 13.2% vs 2.5%), decreased platelet count (37% vs 10%; .9% vs .2%), increased ALT (37% vs 24%; 2.6% vs 1.2%), increased AST (31% vs 18%; 1.6% vs .9%), and hypokalemia (11% vs 3.8%; 1.3% vs 0.2%).

The most common adverse reactions (all grades, ≥10%) observed in MONARCH 3 for Verzenio plus anastrozole or letrozole vs anastrozole or letrozole, with a difference between arms of ≥2%, were diarrhea (81% vs 30%), fatigue (40% vs 32%), neutropenia (41% vs 2%), infections (39% vs 29%), nausea (39% vs 20%), abdominal pain (29% vs 12%), vomiting (28% vs 12%), anemia (28% vs 5%), alopecia (27% vs 11%), decreased appetite (24% vs 9%), leukopenia (21% vs 2%), creatinine increased (19% vs 4%), constipation (16% vs 12%), ALT increased (16% vs 7%), AST increased (15% vs 7%), rash (14% vs 5%), pruritus (13% vs 9%), cough (13% vs 9%), dyspnea (12% vs 6%), dizziness (11% vs 9%), weight decreased (10% vs 3.1%), influenza-like illness (10% vs 8%), and thrombocytopenia (10% vs 2%).

The most frequently reported ≥5% Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions that occurred in the Verzenio arm vs the placebo arm of MONARCH 3 were neutropenia (22% vs 1%), diarrhea (9% vs 1.2%), leukopenia (7% vs <1%)), increased ALT (6% vs 2%), and anemia (6% vs 1%).

Lab abnormalities (all grades; Grade 3 or 4) for MONARCH 3 in ≥10% for Verzenio plus anastrozole or letrozole with a difference between arms of ≥2% were increased serum creatinine (98% vs 84%; 2.2% vs 0%), decreased white blood cells (82% vs 27%; 13% vs 0.6%), anemia (82% vs 28%; 1.6% vs 0%), decreased neutrophil count (80% vs 21%; 21.9% vs 2.6%), decreased lymphocyte count (53% vs 26%; 7.6% vs 1.9%), decreased platelet count (36% vs 12%; 1.9% vs 0.6%), increased ALT (48% vs 25%; 6.6% vs 1.9%), and increased AST (37% vs 23%; 3.8% vs 0.6%).

The most common adverse reactions (all grades, ≥10%) observed in MONARCH 2 for Verzenio plus fulvestrant vs fulvestrant, with a difference between arms of ≥2%, were diarrhea (86% vs 25%), neutropenia (46% vs 4%), fatigue (46% vs 32%), nausea (45% vs 23%), infections (43% vs 25%), abdominal pain (35% vs 16%), anemia (29% vs 4%), leukopenia (28% vs 2%), decreased appetite (27% vs 12%), vomiting (26% vs 10%), headache (20% vs 15%), dysgeusia (18% vs 2.7%), thrombocytopenia (16% vs 3%), alopecia (16% vs 1.8%), stomatitis (15% vs 10%), ALT increased (13% vs 5%), pruritus (13% vs 6%), cough (13% vs 11%), dizziness (12% vs 6%), AST increased (12% vs 7%), peripheral edema (12% vs 7%), creatinine increased (12% vs <1%), rash (11% vs 4.5%), pyrexia (11% vs 6%), and weight decreased (10% vs 2.2%).

The most frequently reported ≥5% Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions that occurred in the Verzenio arm vs the placebo arm of MONARCH 2 were neutropenia (25% vs 1%), diarrhea (13% vs 0.4%), leukopenia (9% vs 0%), anemia (7% vs 1%), and infections (5.7% vs 3.5%).

Lab abnormalities (all grades; Grade 3 or 4) for MONARCH 2 in ≥10% for Verzenio plus fulvestrant with a difference between arms of ≥2% were increased serum creatinine (98% vs 74%; 1.2% vs 0%), decreased white blood cells (90% vs 33%; 23.7% vs .9%), decreased neutrophil count (87% vs 30%; 32.5% vs 4.2%), anemia (84% vs 34%; 2.6% vs .5%), decreased lymphocyte count (63% vs 32%; 12.2% vs 1.8%), decreased platelet count (53% vs 15%; 2.1% vs 0%), increased ALT (41% vs 32%; 4.6% vs 1.4%), and increased AST (37% vs 25%; 3.9% vs 4.2%).

The most common adverse reactions (all grades, ≥10%) observed in MONARCH 1 with Verzenio were diarrhea (90%), fatigue (65%), nausea (64%), decreased appetite (45%), abdominal pain (39%), neutropenia (37%), vomiting (35%), infections (31%), anemia (25%), thrombocytopenia (20%), headache (20%), cough (19%), constipation (17%), leukopenia (17%), arthralgia (15%), dry mouth (14%), weight decreased (14%), stomatitis (14%), creatinine increased (13%), alopecia (12%), dysgeusia (12%), pyrexia (11%), dizziness (11%), and dehydration (10%).

The most frequently reported ≥5% Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions from MONARCH 1 with Verzenio were diarrhea (20%), neutropenia (24%), fatigue (13%), and leukopenia (5%).

Lab abnormalities (all grades; Grade 3 or 4) for MONARCH 1 with Verzenio were increased serum creatinine (99%; .8%), decreased white blood cells (91%; 28%), decreased neutrophil count (88%; 26.6%), anemia (69%; 0%), decreased lymphocyte count (42%; 13.8%), decreased platelet count (41%; 2.3%), increased ALT (31%; 3.1%), and increased AST (30%; 3.8%).

Serious and Fatal Adverse Reactions for Inluriyo in combination with Verzenio: Serious adverse reactions occurred in 21% of patients who received Inluriyo in combination with Verzenio. Serious adverse reactions in >1% of patients who received Inluriyo in combination with Verzenio included pneumonia (2.4%), abdominal pain, and renal failure (each 1.4%). Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 3.8% of patients who received Inluriyo in combination with Verzenio, including pneumonia (1.4%), myocardial infarction, interstitial lung disease, and sepsis (0.5% each).

Most Common Adverse Reactions for Inluriyo in combination with Verzenio: The most common (≥10%) adverse reactions with Inluriyo in combination with Verzenio, including laboratory abnormalities, were decreased neutrophils, diarrhea, decreased hemoglobin, decreased lymphocytes, nausea, decreased platelets, fatigue, increased triglycerides, infections, increased AST, increased creatinine, increased ALT, vomiting, musculoskeletal pain, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, increased cholesterol, rash, cough, headache, and decreased weight.

Strong and moderate CYP3A inhibitors increased the exposure of abemaciclib plus its active metabolites to a clinically meaningful extent and may lead to increased toxicity. Avoid concomitant use of ketoconazole. Ketoconazole is predicted to increase the AUC of abemaciclib by up to 16-fold. In patients with recommended starting doses of 200 mg twice daily or 150 mg twice daily, reduce the Verzenio dose to 100 mg twice daily with concomitant use of strong CYP3A inhibitors other than ketoconazole. In patients who have had a dose reduction to 100 mg twice daily due to adverse reactions, further reduce the Verzenio dose to 50 mg twice daily with concomitant use of strong CYP3A inhibitors. If a patient taking Verzenio discontinues a strong CYP3A inhibitor, increase the Verzenio dose (after 3-5 half-lives of the inhibitor) to the dose that was used before starting the inhibitor. Patients should avoid grapefruit products. With concomitant use of moderate CYP3A inhibitors, monitor for adverse reactions and consider reducing the Verzenio dose in 50 mg decrements.

Avoid concomitant use of strong or moderate CYP3A inducers and consider alternative agents. Coadministration of strong or moderate CYP3A inducers decreased the plasma concentrations of abemaciclib plus its active metabolites and may lead to reduced activity.

With severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh C), reduce the Verzenio dosing frequency to once daily. No dosage adjustments are necessary in patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh A or B).

Please see full Prescribing Information and Patient Information for Verzenio.

VZ IN HCP ISI ALL APPR

About Lilly
Lilly is a medicine company turning science into healing to make life better for people around the world. We've been pioneering life-changing discoveries for 150 years, and today our medicines help tens of millions of people across the globe. Harnessing the power of biotechnology, chemistry and genetic medicine, our scientists are urgently advancing new discoveries to solve some of the world's most significant health challenges: redefining diabetes care; treating obesity and curtailing its most devastating long-term effects; advancing the fight against Alzheimer's disease; providing solutions to some of the most debilitating immune system disorders; and transforming the most difficult-to-treat cancers into manageable diseases. With each step toward a healthier world, we're motivated by one thing: making life better for millions more people. That includes delivering innovative clinical trials that reflect the diversity of our world and working to ensure our medicines are accessible and affordable. To learn more, visit Lilly.com and Lilly.com/news, or follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. P-LLY

Trademarks and Trade Names
All trademarks or trade names referred to in this press release are the property of the company, or, to the extent trademarks or trade names belonging to other companies are references in this press release, the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names in this press release are referred to without the ® and ™ symbols, but such references should not be construed as any indicator that the company or, to the extent applicable, their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, the company's or their rights thereto. We do not intend the use or display of other companies' trademarks and trade names to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements (as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) about sofetabart mipitecan as a potential treatment for ovarian cancer as well as other FRα-expressing solid tumors, olomorasib as a potential treatment for certain KRAS G12C-mutant advanced solid tumors, Retevmo (selpercatinib) as a treatment for advanced RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer (MTC), and Verzenio (abemaciclib) as a treatment for certain HR+, HER2– breast cancers in the adjuvant and advanced or metastatic setting, and reflects Lilly's current beliefs and expectations. However, as with any pharmaceutical product, there are substantial risks and uncertainties in the process of drug research, development, and commercialization. Among other things, there is no guarantee that planned or ongoing studies will be completed as planned, that future study results will be consistent with study results to date, that any of these therapies will prove to be a safe and effective treatment or receive regulatory approval, or that Lilly will execute its strategy as expected. For further discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ from Lilly's expectations, see Lilly's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Except as required by law, Lilly undertakes no duty to update forward-looking statements to reflect events after the date of this release.

Endnotes & References

Bax, Heather J et al. "Folate receptor alpha in ovarian cancer tissue and patient serum is associated with disease burden and treatment outcomes." British journal of cancer vol. 128,2 (2023): 342-353. doi:10.1038/s41416-022-02031-x  Scaranti, Mariana et al. "Exploiting the folate receptor α in oncology." Nature reviews. Clinical oncology vol. 17,6 (2020): 349-359. doi:10.1038/s41571-020-0339-5.  Kalli, Kimberly R et al. "Folate receptor alpha as a tumor target in epithelial ovarian cancer." Gynecologic oncology vol. 108,3 (2008): 619-26. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.11.020.  Viricel W, et al. Cancer Res. 2023;83(suppl 7):1544.  Ji J, Wang C, Fakih M. Targeting KRAS G12C-mutated advanced colorectal cancer: Research and clinical developments. OncoTargets and Therapy. 2022;Volume 15:747-756. doi:10.2147/ott.s340392 Peng S-B, Si C, Zhang Y, et al. Abstract 1259: Preclinical characterization of LY3537982, a novel, highly selective and potent KRAS-G12C inhibitor. Cancer Research. 2021;81(13_Supplement):1259-1259. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2021-1259 Retevmo. Prescribing information. Lilly USA, LLC. Verzenio. Prescribing information. Lilly USA, LLC. Inluriyo. Prescribing information. Lilly USA, LLC. Refer to:  Megan Talon; [email protected] (Media)
                 Michael Czapar; [email protected] (Investors)

SOURCE Eli Lilly and Company

CrowdStrike (CRWD -7.03%) has been an incredible performer in 2026. The stock has nearly doubled this year, providing excellent returns. Can it sustain its momentum?

If you invest $5,000 in CrowdStrike now, what could that be worth by the end of 2028? The answer may be a bit shocking.

Image source: Getty Images.

CrowdStrike's cybersecurity solutions have never been more important
CrowdStrike is a cybersecurity company. It offers several products to provide a complete cybersecurity solution for its clients, and 51% of clients use six or more products. However, it all centers on endpoint protection, which is a way to prevent network access points from being used as attack vectors.

CRWD CrowdStrike$227.39-$17.18 (-7.03%)

NASDAQ · As of 4:00 PM ET 10/16/26

CrowdStrike uses AI to monitor an endpoint and shut down access if anything out of the ordinary is detected. When today's cybercriminals are assisted by AI, they become more potent. That's why proper cybersecurity platforms, like CrowdStrike, have become so important. The market recognizes this, which is why CrowdStrike's stock has skyrocketed this year.

However, there may be a bit of a problem. While cybersecurity adoption has certainly ramped up, CrowdStrike's revenue growth rate has remained steady over the past year.

CRWD Revenue (Quarterly YOY Growth) data by YCharts.

A 26% revenue growth rate is slower than many of the major AI giants, yet CrowdStrike's stock is outperforming them. Wall Street analysts don't expect anything out of the ordinary for the rest of the year, as they estimate 24% revenue growth in the third and fourth quarters. Next year, they expect 23% revenue growth.

Growth rates like that, combined with a stock that has doubled this year, start to raise red flags for me as an investor. The stock may have gotten ahead of itself, and it could be getting a bit pricey. One quick look at its price-to-sales (P/S) ratio (because it isn't profitable) confirms this.

CRWD P/S Ratio data by YCharts.

CrowdStrike is now the most expensive it has been since 2021. That's a huge red flag, as 2022 saw many software stocks, like CrowdStrike, crater because expectations were too high for the growth they were delivering. History may be repeating itself, as CrowdStrike's growth is matching its valuation.

Although I'm a CrowdStrike shareholder, now may be the time to trim and take some gains, as the stock has gotten very expensive. By 2028, CrowdStrike will have grown in some of its valuation, but not all. As a result, a $5,000 investment now could be worth less than it is today, based solely on a sky-high price tag. There are many other AI stocks with much better valuations and faster growth, and investors should turn their focus there.

EUR/USD opens lower following widespread civil unrest in France French sovereign spreads widened sharply before stabilising last week Net short positioning approached the extremes reached in July Hot US inflation failed to produce sustained dollar strength Buyers have repeatedly emerged on EUR/USD dips beneath 1.1200 EUR/USD opened lower in Asia on Monday following scenes of widespread civil unrest across France over the weekend, with some of the most violent clashes, looting and vandalism taking place in Paris.

However, it's been the performance of French government debt, rather than political headlines alone, that's had a more powerful influence on the euro recently, as seen in the graphic below tracking the rolling correlation between French OAT-German bunds.

While we won't get a proper assessment of how bond traders are responding to the weekend's developments until European markets open, there's a reasonable question to ask: what exactly have we learned that we didn't already know?

Source: LSEG

France's deteriorating fiscal position, political fragmentation and difficulties pushing through meaningful budget consolidation have been apparent for years, even if they've attracted renewed scrutiny over recent months. French government bond spreads have already widened substantially relative to German Bunds, with political uncertainty hardly a new consideration ahead of next year's presidential election.

While that doesn't mean the situation can't deteriorate further, for the latest unrest to drive a sustained reassessment of the euro, markets arguably need evidence that France's fiscal or political outlook is becoming materially worse than investors had already anticipated.

And when you consider this pair faces political uncertainty not only in Europe but also in the United States ahead of the US midterm elections, it's difficult to see why this weekend's unrest alone would justify another sustained bout of aggressive euro selling.

French spreads show stress, but little fresh deterioration There's no question French debt has been under the pump recently. Over the past 20 sessions, the yield premium to own French bonds over comparable German Bunds has widened by roughly 21, 33 and 25 basis points at the two, 10 and 30-year tenors respectively.

However, that deteriorating trend stalled last week, with the two-year spread narrowing by around five basis points and the 10-year tenor virtually unchanged.

Source: LSEG

One week's price action always needs to be treated with caution, but at face value, it suggests renewed French fiscal concerns and political uncertainty may already be largely baked into the price.

If the weekend's developments fail to spark another meaningful widening in French sovereign spreads, the latest unrest may not lead to an extension of the euro's early weakness in Asia, especially with bearish positioning among leveraged traders already sitting at fairly extreme levels.

Leveraged funds pile into euro shorts

Source: LSEG

According to CFTC data, leveraged funds increased their net short euro exposure by 41,478 contracts over the four weeks to October 13, a shift ranking among the most bearish 5.6% of comparable periods since 2006.

That left net short positioning at 92,833 contracts, almost identical to the levels reached in late July.

Importantly, those figures predate the weekend's unrest, providing a snapshot of positioning as of Tuesday afternoon in New York last week.

But with leveraged funds already heavily positioned short, extending the euro's decline will require existing bears to become even more bearish, or fresh sellers to enter the market. Neither is out of the realms of possibility, clearly, but it does raise the question of how much additional selling pressure the latest developments will generate.

US dollar bulls had their chances It's not just positioning that raises questions about the potential for a resumption of EUR/USD downside, with the US dollar's performance last week revealing in its own right.

US CPI and PPI data for September both came out way hotter than expected, while sharp declines in tech stocks, driven by renewed AI doubts, provided another source of safe-haven demand, which was seen in Treasury markets.

Yet despite those apparent tailwinds, the dollar struggled, particularly towards the back end of the week, ultimately resulting in EUR/USD breaking out of the downtrend running from the early September highs.

If the dollar is unable to rally on obvious fundamental catalysts, perhaps that's the strongest message of all in terms of its near-term directional risk.

EUR/USD technical analysis

Source: TradingView

EUR/USD broke the downtrend running from the early September highs last week, bouncing strongly from just above 1.1100, which coincides with the 50% retracement of the January 2025 to January 2026 bull move.

From there, the price reclaimed 1.1200 before stalling around 1.1270 late last week. The opening four-hourly candle in Asia on Monday saw EUR/USD dip back beneath 1.1200, but as was the case towards the back end of last week, buyers stepped in aggressively, pushing the pair back above that level.

While the momentum indicators are warning bulls against chasing the move higher, they're not providing a definitively bearish signal either. RSI (14) has been setting lower highs and is back around the neutral 50 level, while MACD is converging towards its signal line but remains in positive territory.

Looking at the price action, what's clear is that dips beneath 1.1200 have been well supported recently, with buyers repeatedly stepping in following sharp declines since the beginning of October.

On the downside, 1.1152 is a minor level to watch beneath Monday's earlier low, followed by 1.1113, the swing low set last week.

Overhead, last week's high around 1.1270 is the first level to watch, followed by minor resistance at 1.1285 and 1.1312, before the 38.2% Fibonacci retracement of the January 2025 to January 2026 bull move at 1.1358.

With little on the economic calendar this week, political headlines could play a larger role in driving short-term price action than would ordinarily be the case, at least until Friday's flash PMI releases.

Evercore (NYSE: EVR) today announced that its Board of Directors has appointed Nigel Dawn and Naveen Nataraj as Co-Presidents of the firm, effective January 1, 2027. Mr. Dawn and Mr. Nataraj will report to Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John S. Weinberg, who will continue to lead Evercore, its Management Committee and the firm’s strategic direction. Evercore’s Board and Mr. Weinberg have agreed that he will serve as Chairman and CEO for at least the next three years.

This new leadership structure will enable the firm to continue to build on its strategy for growth. In their new roles, Mr. Dawn and Mr. Nataraj will work closely with Mr. Weinberg, Roger C. Altman, Evercore’s founder and Senior Chairman, and the global senior leadership team to execute the firm’s strategy and drive global expansion. These appointments will strengthen Evercore’s ability to serve clients while preserving the values, culture and commitment to people that have long defined the firm.

Daniel Mendelow will become sole Head of U.S. Investment Banking, with responsibility for Evercore’s largest business. Jason Sobol will become Chairman of U.S. Investment Banking and will collaborate closely with Eduardo Mestre, who will remain Chairman of Global Investment Banking.

John S. Weinberg said, “As Evercore has grown and evolved, we see increased opportunities to bring value for our clients. This leadership structure will help us drive our strategy more effectively while reinforcing our commitment to clients, our values and our culture. Nigel and Naveen are accomplished leaders who will make important contributions in these roles. I am excited to continue working with them and with our global senior leadership.”

Roger C. Altman said, “Evercore is a different firm today, even compared with three years ago. It is much larger, broader and more global, and is competitively stronger. The firm will benefit from additional management resources to support John, and today’s announcement reflects that need. I could not have greater confidence in Nigel and Naveen and look forward to working with them in their new roles. Moreover, John’s leadership, judgment and deep commitment to our people and clients have been, and will continue to be, central to what we are building.”

Mr. Dawn has led the development of the market-leading global Private Capital (Trades, Portfolio) Advisory (“PCA”) business, with teams in the United States, Europe and Singapore. Mr. Dawn will become Chairman of PCA and remain closely connected to the business and its clients.

During his tenure at Evercore, Mr. Nataraj has advised some of the firm’s most important clients on transactions across a broad range of industries. He will continue to advise clients and remain actively engaged in the firm’s Investment Banking business.

About Evercore

Evercore (NYSE: EVR) is a premier global independent investment banking advisory firm. We are dedicated to helping our clients achieve superior results through trusted independent and innovative advice on matters of strategic and financial significance to boards of directors, management teams and shareholders, including mergers and acquisitions, strategic shareholder advisory, restructurings and capital structure. Evercore also assists clients in raising public and private capital, delivers equity research and equity sales and agency trading execution, and provides wealth and investment management services to high-net-worth and institutional investors. Founded in 1995, the firm is headquartered in New York and maintains offices and affiliate offices in major financial centers in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. For more information, please visit www.evercore.com.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20261018112796/en/

Also check out:

 | Source:

ZENTALIS PHARMACEUTICALS

Median overall survival of 15.8 months in Cyclin E1-positive platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients treated with azenosertib monotherapy Data to be presented as a rapid oral presentation at ESMO Congress 2026 on October 23, 2026 SAN DIEGO, Oct. 18, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Zentalis® Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: ZNTL), a clinical oncology innovator advancing late-stage development of investigational first-in-class WEE1 inhibitor azenosertib as a biomarker-driven treatment approach for ovarian cancer, today announced that overall survival (OS) data from an interim analysis of the DENALI Part 1b study (GOG-3066) have been published in the abstract for the upcoming rapid oral presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2026.

The published abstract reports results for OS, a secondary endpoint of DENALI Part 1b in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC), from an interim analysis. As of the September 2, 2025 data cutoff:

In the Cyclin E1-positive subgroup (n=48): median OS of 15.8 months (95% CI, 8.7–17.8);In the Cyclin E1-negative subgroup (n=46): median OS of 7.5 months (95% CI, 5.8–12.3);No new safety signals were observed. DENALI Part 1b enrolled 102 patients with PROC regardless of Cyclin E1 protein expression who had received between one and five prior lines of therapy, with prior bevacizumab required. The primary endpoint was objective response rate; secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival, OS and safety. Cyclin E1 status was retrospectively determined by immunohistochemistry using a proprietary cutoff, with 94 patients evaluable (Cyclin E1-positive: n=48; Cyclin E1-negative: n=46).

The abstract concludes that Cyclin E1 represents a highly selective and predictive biomarker for response to azenosertib, and that median OS with azenosertib compared favorably to historical single-agent chemotherapy benchmarks in patients with Cyclin E1-positive PROC, supporting further development of azenosertib in this biomarker-selected population in the ongoing DENALI Part 2 and ASPENOVA Phase 3 confirmatory trials.

The abstract is available on the ESMO Congress website and a rapid oral presentation is scheduled on October 23, 2026.

Presentation Details:

Title: "Azenosertib in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC): overall survival analysis from Part 1b of the DENALI study (GOG-3066)"Session: Rapid Oral Presentation — Gynecological Cancers: OvarianDate/Time: Friday, October 23, 2026, 4:15 p.m. – 5:45 p.m. CESTPresentation Number: 1242ROLocation: ESMO Congress 2026, Madrid, Spain About the DENALI Clinical Trial
DENALI is a multi-part Phase 2 registration-intended clinical trial (NCT05128825, GOG-3066) studying azenosertib in patients with PROC.

Part 1b enrolled 102 patients with PROC regardless of Cyclin E1 protein expression, all treated at 400 mg QD 5:2 (five days of once-daily administration of azenosertib, followed by two days without azenosertib). The primary endpoint was objective response rate per RECIST v1.1; secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety.

Part 2 is prospectively enrolling PROC patients with Cyclin E1 protein overexpression based on Zentalis' proprietary immunohistochemistry cutoff. Part 2, in total, is designed to support accelerated approval, pending positive study outcomes and further discussions with the FDA. The study design consists of the following parts:

Part 2a: Dose confirmation evaluated two doses, 300 mg QD 5:2 and 400 mg QD 5:2, with approximately 30 patients enrolled per dose group. 400 mg QD 5:2 was selected as the optimal monotherapy dose. Recruitment at the 300 mg QD 5:2 dose level has been discontinued. All patients enrolled in Part 2a will contribute to the overall safety database submitted to the FDA.Part 2b: Enrollment expansion at the selected 400 mg QD 5:2 dose up to approximately 100 patients, including patients at this dose in Part 2a. Enrollment in this cohort is complete.Part 2c: Broadening of the study population, which is expected to include approximately 40 patients previously treated with a taxane-containing regimen for PROC. This cohort is currently enrolling. For physician and patient information about the DENALI trial, please visit www.denalitrial.com.

About ASPENOVA Clinical Trial
ASPENOVA is a Phase 3 randomized, confirmatory clinical trial designed to support full approval of azenosertib in patients with Cyclin E1-positive PROC. The trial is expected to enroll approximately 420 patients and compare azenosertib monotherapy at 400mg QD 5:2 to investigator's choice of standard-of-care single-agent chemotherapy (paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin [PLD], gemcitabine, or topotecan) in this biomarker-selected population. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS); key secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR). The trial design was based on feedback from the U.S. FDA regarding requirements for seeking approval under the accelerated approval pathway and requirements to support potential conversion to full approval.

About Azenosertib
Azenosertib is an investigational, potentially first-in-class, selective, and orally bioavailable inhibitor of WEE1 currently being evaluated in clinical studies in ovarian cancer and additional tumor types. WEE1 acts as a master regulator of the G1-S and G2-M cell cycle checkpoints, through negative regulation of both CDK1 and CDK2, to prevent replication of cells with damaged DNA. By inhibiting WEE1, azenosertib enables cell cycle progression, despite high levels of DNA damage, thereby resulting in the accumulation of DNA damage and leading to mitotic catastrophe and cancer cell death.

Azenosertib is in late-stage development as a potential treatment for Cyclin E1-positive platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). There is currently no approved treatment option specifically for this biomarker-selected population which comprises approximately 50% of PROC patients. Cyclin E1 protein overexpression has been established as a sensitive and specific predictive biomarker for identifying patients who could potentially derive benefit from azenosertib treatment.

About Zentalis Pharmaceuticals
Zentalis is a clinical oncology innovator developing a treatment approach for ovarian cancer and multiple tumor types. Leveraging therapeutics development and biomarker expertise, Zentalis is advancing monotherapy and combination studies of its investigational first-in-class WEE1 inhibitor, azenosertib. Focused on translating WEE1 science into clinical practice, we aim to equip physicians with a targeted, non-chemo, orally available medicine that enhances treatment experience, choice, and outcomes. Our mission: to unburden cancer patients with more convenience and care.​

For more information, please visit www.zentalis.com. Follow Zentalis on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/company/zentalis-pharmaceuticals

Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. All statements contained in this press release that do not relate to matters of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, statements regarding the continued development of azenosertib; the clinical and therapeutic potential of azenosertib; the potential for azenosertib to be first-in-class; the broad franchise potential of azenosertib; the Company’s biomarker-driven strategy for azenosertib, including the ability of Cyclin E1 to be a highly selective and predictive biomarker for response to azenosertib; and our participation in conference presentations. The terms “anticipate,” “advance,” “believe,” “design,” “develop,” “expect,” “intent,” “look forward,” “on track,” “plan,” “position,” “potential,” “runway,” “strategy,” “support,” “target,” “upcoming,” and “will” and similar references are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. These statements are neither promises nor guarantees, but involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the following: our limited operating history, which may make it difficult to evaluate our current business and predict our future success and viability; we have and expect to continue to incur significant losses; our need for additional funding, which may not be available; our substantial dependence on the success of azenosertib; our plans, including the costs thereof, of development of companion diagnostics; the outcome of preclinical testing and early trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials; potential unforeseen events during clinical trials could cause delays or other adverse consequences; risks relating to the regulatory approval process or ongoing regulatory obligations; our product candidates may cause serious adverse side effects; inability to maintain our collaborations, or the failure of these collaborations; our reliance on third parties; effects of significant competition; the possibility of system failures or security breaches; risks relating to intellectual property; our ability to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel, and risks relating to management transitions; significant costs as a result of operating as a public company; and the other important factors discussed under the caption “Risk Factors” in our most recently filed periodic report on Form 10-K or 10-Q and subsequent filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and our other filings with the SEC. Any such forward-looking statements represent management’s estimates as of the date of this press release. While we may elect to update such forward-looking statements at some point in the future, we disclaim any obligation to do so, even if subsequent events cause our views to change.

ZENTALIS® and its associated logo are trademarks of Zentalis and/or its affiliates. All website addresses and other links in this press release are for information only and are not intended to be an active link or to incorporate any website or other information into this press release. 

Contact: 
Aron Feingold
VP, Investor Relations & Corporate Communications
[email protected]

Robinhood is offering $5 in SUI to users who complete a short in-app lesson on the Sui Network, following its August 2025 listing of the Layer-1 token.

Robinhood is offering $5 worth of $SUI to users who spend a few minutes learning about the @SuiNetwork Layer-1 blockchain inside its app. The promotion is framed as a "SUI 101" lesson and is not available in New York state, and rewards are limited to while supplies last.

The campaign is not an endorsement of the token. Still, it is notable that $HOOD, the listed parent of @RobinhoodApp, led by @vladtenev, is putting resources behind educating investors about this particular network.

How the Robinhood Learn and Earn programme worksThe offer sits within Robinhood's existing Learn and Earn feature. According to Robinhood's rewards support page, users scroll to the "Learn about crypto" section of their crypto account and select Learn and Earn. They read a short lesson about a token, then take a quiz, and those who pass may be eligible for a reward. Robinhood says the cash value of the reward must be held for 180 days after it is granted, and availability is limited to certain jurisdictions.

Crypto community accounts have described the Sui version as a card labelled "Learn and earn $5 of SUI" in the app, with users completing short lessons to claim the reward.

Background: Robinhood and SuiThe promotion follows Robinhood's decision to add the token to its platform last year. The Sui Foundation said SUI became available to trade for US customers on Robinhood, and described the listing as a step up in access for retail users new to crypto. CoinCentral reported that spot trading went live on August 19, 2025, for users in the US and Europe, and that the token's price initially rose 1.7% before reversing amid profit-taking.

Robinhood's own asset page describes SUI as the native utility token of the Layer-1 Sui blockchain developed by Mysten Labs. It is used for gas fees, staking in the network's Delegated Proof-of-Stake system, and governance.

Educational rewards of this kind are a common way for trading platforms to draw new users toward specific assets. Crypto prices are volatile, and users receiving tokens through such programmes should be aware that the value of their holdings can fall as well as rise.

SourcesRobinhood: Rewards and Learn and Earn
Sui Foundation: SUI now listed on Robinhood
CoinCentral: Robinhood lists SUI

Apple keeps setting records while Bitcoin slides further from its peak, but the real question for retirement investors goes beyond recent performance. The winner of this comparison might surprise anyone who assumes crypto always wins the long game.

Apple (NASDAQ: | AAPL Price Prediction AAPL) is on a roll, consistently hitting new highs. On October 13, 2026, its stock peaked at an intraday high of $348. It crossed the $5 trillion market value threshold for the first time on October 14 and ended the trading session on October 16 with another record close at $343, marking an impressive 26.7% gain for the year.

In contrast, Bitcoin (CRYPTO:BTC) has struggled. It hit a high of $126,080 on October 6, 2025, and has not set a new high in 2026. Bitcoin trades around $81,977 as of October 18, 35% below that peak, and has declined 6.8% in 2026.

So, in the Apple vs. Bitcoin comparison, which investment is more suitable for retirement funds that investors can’t afford to lose?

Apple Excels in Income and Buybacks

Apple rewards its shareholders with returns. While its 0.31% dividend yield may seem small, the board increased the quarterly dividend by 4% to $0.27 in April and approved an additional $100 billion for share buybacks. When a company buys back its shares, fewer shares remain, so each remaining share represents a larger portion of the company’s profits.

In the June quarter alone, Apple returned $33 billion to shareholders, with $25.8 billion coming from buybacks. This distribution was made possible by a 27.1% increase in net income, totaling $29.8 billion.

On the other hand, Bitcoin is a digital currency with a capped supply and no corporate entity behind it, meaning it generates no earnings or dividends. Its price fluctuations are driven by new investments from sources like ETF buyers and corporate treasuries. Therefore, in this round, Apple comes out on top.

Bitcoin’s Volatility Can Hurt Retirees More

Over the past year, Apple has risen by 39.3%, while Bitcoin has dropped by 23.4%. Although Bitcoin rose 26.1% in the 60 days leading up to October, it remains 35% below its peak.

This price disparity can be especially detrimental for retirees relying on their investments for income. A significant decline means they would have to sell more Bitcoin to cover their expenses, locking in potential losses. With decades to wait for a recovery, younger investors may handle Bitcoin’s wild price swings better than those who are 65 or older.

Apple does carry its own risks; it trades at about 45 times earnings, which some consider steep. Additionally, management has warned of rising memory costs in the September quarter. However, Apple has beaten earnings-per-share estimates for nine consecutive quarters, giving it an edge in risk management.

Bitcoin’s Long-Term Returns Are Impressive, but Apple Is More Reliable

In terms of long-term performance, Bitcoin shines with an astonishing 12,800% gain over the past decade, compared to around 1,180% for Apple. However, this figure starts from a much lower price of approximately $631 in October 2016, when Bitcoin was still growing. Over the last five years, Bitcoin has risen by 31.6%, while Apple’s stock has surged by 143.1%.

Looking forward, Apple must maintain sales momentum, and the signs are promising. iPhone revenue rose 22% in the June quarter, and management forecasts 9% to 11% revenue growth for the September quarter. CEO Tim Cook has described the supply challenges as a “demand forecast issue,” suggesting iPhone and Mac sales have exceeded Apple’s expectations.

In contrast, Bitcoin’s success largely relies on a steady influx of new buyers, which is a less stable foundation. For this reason, Apple also looks better for the future.

Is Apple or Bitcoin a Better Investment for Retirement?
In the Apple vs. Bitcoin debate, Apple is the healthier choice for retirement. It provides steady earnings, a growing dividend, and consistent buybacks, while Bitcoin has fallen 35% from its peak. Bitcoin may appeal more to younger investors who can take a small, speculative position and wait years for a recovery. However, retirees choosing Bitcoin face significant price fluctuations that could force them to sell at a loss.

Apple’s next test will be its pricing strategy, particularly with its new $1,999 iPhone Duo, which may reveal whether consumers are willing to continue paying a premium for the brand. Our perspective could shift if Apple’s next earnings report misses its 9% to 11% revenue guidance while Bitcoin breaks back above its $126,080 record, a 54% climb from its current price.

Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.

Hedge funds have long kept systematic long/short strategies out of reach for ordinary investors, but WisdomTree just listed two ETFs on the Texas Stock Exchange that aim to change that using AI models from a firm WisdomTree now partly owns.

This post may contain links from our sponsors and affiliates, and Flywheel Publishing may receive compensation for actions taken through them.

On October 8, 2026, WisdomTree announced the launch of the WisdomTree Efficient Long/Short U.S. SmallCap Equity Fund (TXSE:WSLS) and the WisdomTree Global Alpha Fund (TXSE:WTAL). Both funds have an expense ratio of 0.88%.

WisdomTree says the two funds give investors access to systematic long/short strategies “traditionally associated with hedge funds” through an ETF structure. They are WisdomTree’s first launches on the Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE), which already lists ETFs from other issuers.

How a Long/Short Fund Tries to Make Money
A long position makes money when a stock rises. A short position makes money when a stock falls. A fund that holds both can try to earn from the gap between the stocks it expects to do well and the ones it expects to lag.

A long/short strategy can seek returns from relative stock performance, but its sensitivity to the overall market depends on how the long and short exposures are balanced. WSLS also retains broad small-cap market exposure.

WisdomTree has used this approach before. The new funds build on the WisdomTree Efficient Long/Short U.S. Equity Fund (WTLS), which WisdomTree launched in January 2026.

WSLS Stacks a Stock-Picking Layer on Top of Small Caps
WSLS holds broad U.S. small-cap exposure, either through stocks or through derivatives (contracts whose value tracks an underlying asset), and on top of that core it runs a dynamic long/short “overlay,” which is a second strategy layered over the main holdings. WisdomTree’s thinking is that individual small-cap stocks have more widely spread returns, which may give its models more room to add value.

WTAL Aims to Earn Whether Markets Rise or Fall
WisdomTree says WTAL runs two long/short overlays: one in U.S. stocks and one in international stocks. According to WisdomTree, it gets that exposure through derivatives, including swaps (agreements in which two parties trade the returns of different assets), and holds Treasuries and cash as collateral.

WisdomTree says WTAL aims for a market-neutral return stream, meaning its results should come from how its stock picks perform against each other, with market direction playing a much smaller role. A traditional stock fund earns money when markets rise. WTAL is designed to earn from the spread between its winners and losers in any kind of market.

According to Jeremy Schwartz, WisdomTree’s Global Chief Investment Officer, “many investors want returns that don’t simply rise and fall with the broader market, but accessing those returns has often meant adding complexity to a portfolio.”

An Israeli Fintech Partner WisdomTree Partly Owns
Both funds pick investments using machine learning models developed by AlphaBeta. The models are trained on historical data to forecast a security’s return and/or risk. AlphaBeta is an Israeli fintech firm that specializes in quantitative and AI-driven strategies, and WisdomTree announced a strategic minority investment in the company in November 2025.

Leverage, Models and a Fee Hurdle
WisdomTree’s own disclosures list the risks. Both funds use derivatives, which create leverage, and the value of an investment may change quickly and without warning. Both are actively managed but rely heavily on quantitative models that may not perform as intended. WTAL also carries the added risks of investing in foreign stocks.

At WisdomTree’s stated 0.88% a year, each fund has to earn back its fee before an investor gets any benefit. That fee is far higher than many plain index funds charge, so the models have to produce enough extra return to cover the difference.

What to Look For Going Forward
Putting hedge fund-style strategies inside an ETF fixes the access problem. Anyone with a brokerage account can buy shares, with no high minimum investment. The harder question is whether the models can produce returns that support the fee and the leverage.

Over the coming months, investors can monitor asset growth, holdings, trading spreads, and shareholder reports, while assessing whether the strategies deliver adequate returns after expenses. For more on recent ETF launches on the same exchange, see our coverage of a new power-focused ETF that also sells calls.

Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.

NEW YORK, Oct. 18, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Duolingo, Inc. (NASDAQ: DUOL) and certain of its officers.

This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Duolingo securities between May 2, 2025 and February 26, 2026, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm’s site: bgandg.com/cases/duolingo-inc-duol-class_action_lawsuit.

Duolingo Case Details

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose that:
(1)   Daily Active User (“DAU”) growth rates were being leveraged against deliberately added user friction in the form of significant increases in ad volume, subscription tier upsells, and worsened product quality, and Duolingo understood that any amount of user friction would cause users to leave the app and, ultimately, negatively impact DAU growth rates;
(2)    the Company’s rigorous A/B testing demonstrated that increased friction in the free user experience was having negative impacts on DAU growth rates;
(3)   Duolingo’s quickly generated AI content was worsening the quality of the Company’s product offerings, negatively impacting the user experience and user trends, and threatening the sustainability of the Company’s financial performance; and
(4)   Duolingo’s constant A/B testing informed the Company that its monetization push and lower-quality, rapidly generated AI content were degrading the Duolingo product experience and the value proposition of its subscription tiers.

What's Next for Duolingo Investors?

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm’s site: bgandg.com/cases/duolingo-inc-duol-class_action_lawsuit. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you suffered a loss in Duolingo you have until December 7, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff.

No Cost to Duolingo Investors

We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys’ fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful.

Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC for Duolingo Securities Class Action?

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com

"Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, X, Facebook, or Instagram.

Contact Info

Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or Nathan Miller
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
917-590-0911 | [email protected]

Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Fresh off a $2 billion re-fi, SL Green’s 1.8 million square-foot 245 Park Avenue reached 100% occupancy in September — and that’s only part of the property’s story.

The 44-story tower on the entire block between East 46th and East 47th is putting the finishing touches on what SL Green CEO Marc Holliday called a “seismic,” $225 million repositioning. The project includes a new wraparound public plaza, a striking new Park Avenue podium facade by KPF, lavish tenant amenities and, soon, a restaurant from John Meadow’s LDV Hospitality.

A rendering of 245 Park Ave. after its $225 million facelift is complete. SL Green
“It’s a quintessential SLG Green case study,” Holliday told us. “It was a comprehensive re-do from the plaza to the roof. We breathe new life into older buildings and bring them up to world-class standards.” The work is expected to wrap up in March.

Holliday credited joint-venture partner Mori Trust and architects KPF for “sharing our vision” to make 245 Park Avenue fully competitive in the red-hot Park Avenue market. He also expressed gratitude to the Department of City Planning for cooperating in the plaza redesign.

Rents at 245 Park were around $85 per square foot when SL Green took total control of the property in 2022 following a “contentious bankruptcy” by the previous owner, Holliday said. More recent “asks” were as high as $185 psf. The lease that filled the building was for Nearwater Management, which took 36,563 square feet.

SL Green CEO Marc Holliday said 245 Park’s rents were $85 per square foot when the company took over the property in 2022. Recent “asks” were up to $185 psf.
SL Green first entered the 245 Park picture as a lender in 2018. It was technically about 80% full when SL Green took over four years later, but that’s misleading since a number of leases were expiring. “We had to re-establish good tenant relationships” after disruption during the bankruptcy, Holliday said. The tower has since lured Area Management, Carlyle Investment Management, EQT Partners and Houlihan Lokey.

245 Park Ave.’s facelift includes lavish tenant amenities. SL Green
Holliday said of the re-fi, “We’re thrilled at the support we got from the debt community, it’s very satisfying.” The new loan led by JP Morgan Chase and including six other banks replaced a $1.2 billion mortgage loan and a $568 mezzanine loan.

The tower will soon have a  restaurant from John Meadow’s LVD Hospitality. It will fill a 10,000 square-foot ground-level corner at the north end of the Park Avenue side.

“The space was vacant for many years. We don’t know why,” Holliday said. “We chose LVD because they’re great operators.” Meadow is known for his popular Scarpetta trattorias but a concept for 245 Park has yet to be chosen.

Gilead Sciences (GILD -0.75%), a biotech leader, has outperformed broader equities this year. The company's financial results have been fairly strong, contributing to its year-to-date performance. However, another factor behind Gilead Sciences' run is its important regulatory progress, which has improved its lineup of approved drugs. That's all well and good, but after climbing by almost 30% this year, are Gilead's shares still attractive?

Recent approvals could move the needle Over the past few years, Gilead Sciences has experienced declining sales from its coronavirus medicine, Veklury. The company's financial results have sometimes been mixed as a result, but things are trending up for the biotech giant. In the second quarter, Gilead Sciences' revenue came in at $7.8 billion, up 10% year over year. Product sales excluding Veklury also grew by 10% compared to the year-ago period. The company reported a non-GAAP loss per share of $6.75, compared to earnings per share of $2.01 in the year-ago period. The decline was mostly due to acquisition-related expenses.

Image source: Getty Images.

Gilead Sciences' core HIV portfolio was the primary driver of this performance. HIV product sales came in at $5.7 billion, up 12% year over year. The good news is that recent approvals (and label expansions) will help strengthen the company's HIV lineup and diversify its portfolio. In late August, Gilead Sciences announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved Bixlenvo, an HIV regimen. Bixlenvo is a daily oral tablet that combines two existing HIV medicines.

It helps simplify treatment for certain patients who were taking more than one pill per day. According to some estimates, that represents 5% of HIV patients in the U.S. That's in the neighborhood of 58,000 people. So, this market isn't huge. But the approval of Bixlenvo helps solidify Gilead Sciences' leadership position in the HIV market. Moving beyond HIV, Gilead Sciences received a label expansion for Trodelvy, a cancer medicine, in June. Trodelvy can now be used as a first-line treatment in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

The medicine was already indicated for previously treated breast cancer, but the first-line indication tends to be the most lucrative. That's because drugs approved as second- or third-line treatments are eligible for only a fraction of the patient pool, whereas being indicated as a first-line treatment means eligibility for all newly diagnosed patients. That's why the recent Trodelvy label expansion in one of the deadliest cancers in the world could be particularly important.

$156.19-$1.18 (-0.75%)

NASDAQ · As of 4:00 PM ET 10/16/26

Lastly, in May, Gilead Sciences earned approval for Hepcludex, a medication for chronic hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection. It will be a nice addition to the company's liver disease portfolio, which is performing fairly well. Second-quarter liver disease sales came in at $877 million, up 10% year over year. Management expects Hepcludex to be a modest growth contributor in this segment.

A reliable dividend stock Gilead Sciences' brand-new approvals -- and the Trodelvy label expansion -- should help the company's revenue and earnings move in the right direction over the medium term as the impact of Veklury on its financial results fades. Of course, the biotech giant can still count on several of its flagship products. None is more important than Biktarvy, an HIV medicine. Biktarvy is the leading HIV treatment in the U.S. Descovy for PrEP is another important growth driver.

Gilead Sciences should also make significant clinical and regulatory progress over the next few years, especially in HIV and oncology. So, the company's financial results should remain strong in the medium term. Here's another good reason to consider Gilead Sciences: It is a solid dividend stock. The company boasts a forward yield of 2.2%, compared with the S&P 500's average of 1.1%, and has increased its payouts by 74.5% over the past decade. Gilead Sciences appears to be an attractive dividend payer for long-term investors.

3 min read

Hacken noted hacks rose 55% in the third quarter. (Max Bender/Unsplash)Summary

Hackers stole $1.18 billion from crypto projects in the third quarter, up 55% from the previous quarter, according to blockchain security firm Hacken.About $900 million in losses stemmed from compromised suppliers or developer tools, uninstalled security fixes or components excluded from security reviews.Hacken warned that audit badges can give investors a false sense of security because reviews often omit wallets, signing systems and third-party software that attackers target.Crypto investors may be putting too much faith in security audits that fail to cover the systems hackers actually target, according to blockchain security firm Hacken.

In a report released on Thursday, Hacken found that hackers stole $1.18 billion across 107 incidents during the third quarter, 55% more than in the previous quarter. Of that amount, $906.8 million was lost due to compromised suppliers or developer tools, publicly available security fixes that were not installed or components excluded from the most recent security review.

"The problem is always scope." Andrii Matiukhin, co-founder and board director at the company, said in an interview with CoinDesk. "It's expensive to have enormous scopes of all components that interact with funds or influence economics, and teams cut corners, auditing only critical parts of the service.”

The findings raise questions about how much protection investors can expect from crypto projects advertising themselves as audited. Hacken said customers often assume an audit covers an entire platform when it may examine only specific smart contracts, leaving wallets, signing systems and third-party software outside its scope.

“Usually, when a customer sees a new project, they see an audit badge, assume the whole system is covered, and lose money through a key, a supplier, or a setting that was never tested,” Matiukhin said.

The biggest incident in the period was the September attack on crypto exchange Bitget, which lost at least $352 million after hackers exploited a vulnerability in a third-party security product to gain access to its withdrawal infrastructure, according to the report.

Matiukhin declined to identify the venues or provide a detailed assessment before publication of the report. He said it had found no evidence of an active vulnerability, but considered some of the arrangements inadequate given the amounts involved.

“We are not aware of a live bug in the systems of any reviewed venue,” Matiukhin said. “Instead, what we found is setups where key setups are not secure enough considering the scale of the venues reviewed.”

Matiukhin said delays in fixing known vulnerabilities were another concern, particularly when multiple blockchains relied on the same software but updated it at different times.

“Sometimes a critical vulnerability is classified as low by the team, and fix implementation is delayed or even declined,” Matiukhin said.

Responsibility ultimately rests with the companies holding customer funds, which must track vulnerabilities and install fixes promptly rather than rely on an audit completed months or years earlier, Hacken said.

12345678910

, /PRNewswire/ --

Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: JBHT) resulting from allegations that J.B. Hunt may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public.

So What: If you purchased J.B. Hunt securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/jb-hunt-transport-services-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action.

What is this about: On September 16, 2026, CNBC published an article entitled "J.B. Hunt stock plunges 10% after company warns third-quarter earnings will fall." The article further stated that J.B. Hunt's Chief Financial Officer had "said between costs for recruiting, advertising, onboarding, training and sign-on bonuses, the company expects to see about $25 million more in the third quarter compared with the second quarter."

On this news, J.B. Hunt's shares fell sharply in intraday trading on September 16, 2026.

Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 686-1060
     Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     [email protected]
     www.rosenlegal.com

SOURCE THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P. A.

The L1 narrative rally has turned into a steady correction Starknet’s governance poll on going independent failed to stop the selling Record weekly network revenue landed in the middle of the decline The 200 EMA zone decides whether the larger uptrend survives STRK price has dropped to $0.0624 at the time of writing, roughly 51% below the $0.1268 high it printed around Oct 11–12, after a rally that took the Starknet token nearly five times higher in under four weeks on the back of StarkWare’s plan to turn the network into an independent post-quantum layer 1. The token is down 43.7% over the past seven days and 12.8% in the last 24 hours, its market cap has shrunk to $472.3 million, and the slide has continued even while STRK holders vote on whether that L1 plan should move into a research phase.

A quantum pitch fuelled a 385% run STRK was trading near $0.026 in mid-September, well before anyone at StarkWare spoke publicly about leaving Ethereum. The real trigger came on Oct 8, when Starknet said it was actively considering becoming an L1, a move that would let it become the first fully quantum-resistant network with 2027 as the target. StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson put the idea to the community as an open question the same day, and two days later StarkWare said an independent L1 was its clearest path forward, which lines up with the tallest green candles and the heaviest volume of the entire run on the 4H chart.

We are actively considering becoming an L1.

This would enable Starknet to become the first fully quantum-resistant network, with 2027 as our target. https://t.co/yaFlkp0R1P

— Starknet (@Starknet) October 8, 2026

StarkWare’s case for the move comes down to dependency on Ethereum, and according to the Starknet Foundation, the parts of the network Starknet controls itself can become quantum-resistant soon, while its bridge and data availability layer move on Ethereum’s schedule, and Ethereum’s own post-quantum team is only targeting initial protocol-level protections by 2029. Traders liked that pitch enough to buy it long before any vote existed, and STRK added about 385% from its September base to the October top.

Oct 8 · Starknet says it is considering an L1 move

Oct 10 · StarkWare calls an independent L1 its clearest path

Oct 11–12 · STRK peaks at $0.1268

Oct 15 · Poll opens, spike to $0.098 gets rejected

Oct 22 · Voting closes and results go public

Sellers ignored a revenue record On Oct 17, data from Chainspect showed Starknet’s weekly revenue topping $90,000 for the first time at $92,824, a 5.2% weekly gain that would normally give bulls something to point at. STRK kept sliding through that day and into the weekend, a sign that traders who rode the near fivefold move were still locking in gains regardless of what the network itself was reporting.

💰 @Starknet moved past $90K in weekly revenue for the first time.

$92,824 over the past week.

Starknet's weekly number just got a lot more interesting.

📊 https://t.co/KSeeiplsnb pic.twitter.com/DUNVGFhr1F

— Chainspect (@chainspect_app) October 17, 2026

Two days earlier the poll launch had drawn the same reaction, after Starknet opened itsseven-day, non-binding governance poll on Oct 15, asking stakers and delegators whether the network should research becoming an independent post-quantum L1, with a yes vote leading to research and more detailed proposals and a no vote keeping post-quantum work on the current layer 2 path. STRK shot up to about $0.098 that day on one of the largest volume bars since the peak, then got rejected just under the 0.236 Fibonacci level at $0.103 and closed back inside the range, a failed bounce that confirmed the lower-high sequence and turned what looked like consolidation into a corrective trend.

STRK/USDT 4H chart. Source: TradingView / Alexander Stefanov RSI near oversold, no divergence yet RSI reads 32.3 on the 4H timeframe, below its signal line at 38.4 and close to oversold territory, though it is still making lower lows together with price, so there is no bullish divergence to suggest the selling is ending. Volume on the way down has been noticeably lighter than during the rally, which looks more like orderly profit-taking than panic while also showing that buyers have yet to step in with any size.

On the price side, STRK has now lost the 0.618 retracement at $0.0646, the level traders usually treat as the last line for a strong uptrend, and it trades in the gap between that level and the 200 EMA at $0.0591. The 50 SMA at $0.0854 has started to roll over above price and now sits close to the 0.382 Fib at $0.0883, leaving that band as the ceiling bulls would eventually need to clear.

What’s next for STRK Price? Level From price Zone 50 SMA + 0.382 Fib
$0.085–$0.088 +36% Trend reclaim 0.5 Fib
$0.0764 +22% Upside target 0.618 Fib
$0.0646 +3.5% Reclaim test ● STRK NOW · $0.0624 200 EMA + 0.707 Fib
$0.0555–$0.0591 −5% to −11% Main support 0.786 Fib + Oct 6–8 floor
$0.0476–$0.049 −21% to −24% Breakdown target STRK/USDT 4H levels, Binance.

The $0.0555–$0.0591 zone carries the most weight on the chart because it stacks the 0.707 Fib and the rising 200 EMA on top of the early-October breakout area, where the Oct 5 highs and the Oct 8–9 base sit. If buyers defend it, RSI prints a higher low and a 4H candle closes back above $0.0646, STRK has room to retest the 0.5 Fib at $0.0764. A 4H close under the 200 EMA and $0.0555 would point to $0.048–$0.049 instead, a 0.786 retracement of the whole September–October move that would read as a full reset of the rally.

The vote itself may offer less of a catalyst than its timing suggests. The poll has no quorum requirement and only authorises research, Starknet has published no timetable for an actual exit, and the Starknet governance forum makes clear that any real transition would need its own dedicated governance process later on. Even a clean yes on Oct 22 therefore leaves STRK holders waiting on proposals that do not exist yet, which is a slower story than the one the market paid for in early October.

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

Full Profile

Hyperliquid has introduced revised order priority rules on its testnet, including a reported 10 HYPE delegation requirement for traders seeking faster order handling through its priority fee system.

Summary

Hyperliquid has introduced proposed changes to its order priority rules on testnet following trader feedback. The reported changes require at least 10 HYPE in delegated balance for certain priority fee features. New restrictions concern Standard accounts, CoreWriter transactions, order placement and changes to existing orders. Official documentation distinguishes IOC execution speed from ALO order positioning within the trading queue system. HYPE traded near $79 in the supplied market snapshot, falling over the preceding seven days overall. In an October 18 announcement circulated through its community channels, the decentralized derivatives platform outlined changes to write priority fees following feedback from users. The proposed rules concern traders who depend on low delays when placing, modifying or canceling orders.

The announcement identifies four changes involving account settings, transaction processing and eligibility for priority fees. Hyperliquid’s existing technical documentation confirms how its priority fee system operates, although the newly reported delegation threshold has not yet appeared in the publicly accessible documentation reviewed for this report.

The changes are described as live on testnet. No confirmed date has been announced for applying the revised requirements to mainnet trading.

Hyperliquid introduces a 10 HYPE priority fee rule The October 18 update introduces a minimum delegated balance of 10 HYPE for accounts seeking to use IOC and ALO priority fees, according to the announcement.

IOC, short for immediate-or-cancel, refers to an order that attempts immediate execution and cancels any portion that cannot be filled. ALO, or add-liquidity-only, is used to place orders that join the order book without immediately taking available liquidity.

Both types can use priority fees under Hyperliquid’s existing system, although the benefits work differently. The latest announcement introduces a staking-related eligibility requirement for the priority features. It does not establish that all traders must delegate 10 HYPE to place ordinary orders.

At the supplied HYPE price of $78.98, 10 tokens had a market value of $789.80. The value is a market-price comparison, not a newly announced fixed dollar fee.

Hyperliquid’s existing priority fee documentation states that eligible fees are charged from the user’s undelegated staking balance. The October announcement refers separately to a minimum delegated balance.

The distinction is important to the technical description of the proposal: the delegated balance would determine eligibility under the reported new rule, while the documentation describes an undelegated staking balance as the source used to pay priority fees. The publicly accessible documentation does not yet confirm whether the platform intends to change either balance requirement before a mainnet release.

New rules change how Hyperliquid handles orders Hyperliquid’s announcement restricts mempool priority to accounts using Standard abstraction. The platform’s account abstraction documentation describes Standard mode as the recommended option for market makers, high-volume automated users and developers.

Standard accounts maintain separate balances for spot markets and perpetual futures, including individual balances across independently deployed markets. By comparison, Unified accounts combine eligible balances to support cross-margin trading. Under the proposed rule, transaction priority within the mempool would apply only to Standard abstraction accounts.

The announcement identifies a second restriction concerning HyperCore operations. Account activity outside cancellations, order placements and order modifications would reduce the relevant account’s transaction priority until confirmation.

The reported behavior concerns the ordering of account operations before confirmation. The announcement does not provide a numerical estimate of the additional delay affected accounts might experience.

A separate provision lowers mempool priority for accounts that have directly submitted CoreWriter operations. CoreWriter connects smart contracts running on HyperEVM with actions on HyperCore, where Hyperliquid maintains its native trading functionality.

The rule would therefore affect certain accounts using transactions that pass through HyperEVM to interact with the exchange’s core trading system.

Hyperliquid has not provided a complete list of CoreWriter activities that would trigger the reported priority treatment.

IOC and ALO priority fees work differently Hyperliquid introduced write priority fees to give advanced trading users a way to pay for improved order handling without relying entirely on faster connections to exchange infrastructure.

Its official documentation separates read priority from write priority. Read priority concerns how quickly users receive market information from participating nodes. The system uses two independent Dutch auctions running on a three-minute schedule.

Write priority concerns the submission and processing of orders. Hyperliquid supports priority fee settings for eligible IOC and ALO order groups, with the fee rate included in the order submission.

For IOC orders, priority fees can reduce the time between order submission and processing. The documentation reports an empirical improvement of approximately 45 milliseconds for each basis point of priority fee, up to an eight-basis-point range.

It describes additional priority rates above eight basis points as a method for ordering certain transactions received within closely spaced periods. Cancellation requests retain priority over immediately executable orders, even when those orders carry priority fees.

ALO orders use a different arrangement. Priority fees affect the order’s position within a price-level queue during a continuous 400-millisecond eligibility period. An ALO priority fee is charged when an eligible order is placed, whether or not the order eventually fills.

Unlike IOC fees, ALO priority payments do not provide faster mempool processing. Their documented purpose is to improve queue position among qualifying orders. The platform burns priority fees collected through the mechanism, according to its technical documentation.

Hyperliquid trading activity remains closely watched The proposed testnet changes follow several months of growing activity across Hyperliquid’s perpetual futures markets.

In September, the platform’s open interest reached $18 billion, setting a record for outstanding derivatives positions across its trading markets. The reported figure included activity from the platform’s original perpetual futures exchange and HIP-3 markets created by independent deployers.

Hyperliquid subsequently introduced a HIP-3 permissioned market upgrade on testnet, allowing deployment teams to restrict access to selected trading venues through on-chain permission lists. That update gave market operators more control over which wallets could participate in their contracts. Existing HIP-3 markets were not automatically required to adopt the permissioning feature.

In October, select Hyperliquid perpetual prices became available through Bloomberg Terminal, allowing professional users to monitor around-the-clock markets covering cryptocurrencies and other assets. The Bloomberg Terminal data integration provided market information without adding direct trading execution through the terminal.

Meanwhile, HYPE traded at $78.98 in the October 18 market snapshot supplied with the announcement, down 1.12% over 24 hours and 6.97% during the preceding week.

The snapshot placed HYPE’s 24-hour trading volume at approximately $425.84 million and market capitalization at $17.56 billion. The data did not establish that the priority fee announcement caused the token’s price movement.

Earlier in October, Hyperliquid’s HYPE buyback activity had attracted attention after the Assistance Fund’s cumulative purchases reportedly surpassed 48 million tokens, worth approximately $1.36 billion.

That October 13 report recorded HYPE near $81.20 following a daily decline of almost 5%. For the priority fee proposal, the next operational step is a decision on whether and when to apply the testnet rules to mainnet. Hyperliquid has not supplied a confirmed activation date or a published test result measuring their effect on live order processing.

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

Michael Saylor has hinted at another Bitcoin purchase for Strategy after the company reported holdings of 848,250 BTC, acquired for approximately $64 billion, in its latest weekly disclosure.

Summary

Michael Saylor hinted at further Bitcoin accumulation, although Strategy has not confirmed another purchase this weekend. Strategy’s latest filing shows holdings of 848,250 BTC, acquired for approximately $64 billion including transaction costs. The company bought 250 Bitcoin for $21.5 million during the week ending October 11, its latest disclosure. Strategy spent $192.4 million buying back STRC shares, nearly nine times its weekly Bitcoin purchase expenditure. Bitcoin traded near $81,000 on October 18, keeping Strategy’s holdings above their reported average acquisition cost. In an October 18 post on X, the Strategy co-founder wrote, “We found room for more orange,” alongside a chart showing the company’s Bitcoin buying history. The message suggested further accumulation but did not disclose a transaction amount, purchase date or confirmation of an executed trade.

Strategy’s latest official report, released October 12, showed that the company had purchased 250 BTC for 21.5millionduringtheweekendingOctober11.Ithadspentconsiderablymore—192.4 million—buying back its STRC preferred shares during the same period.

Bitcoin was trading near $81,000 on October 18, according to CoinGecko, placing the market price above Strategy’s reported average Bitcoin acquisition cost of $75,444.

Saylor hints at another Bitcoin purchase without confirming a deal Saylor’s Sunday post continued his practice of publishing charts showing Strategy’s Bitcoin transactions, with purchases represented by orange markers.

His message did not say how many coins the company might acquire or whether an additional transaction had already taken place.

The latest confirmed ownership figure remains 848,250 BTC, according to the company’s October 12 regulatory disclosure, covering activity through October 11.

Strategy’s purchases can be funded through several sources, including sales of common shares, preferred stock offerings and available company cash.

A new chart or social media message, however, does not establish that a transaction has been completed. Confirmation normally comes through the company’s financial disclosures, which identify the number of Bitcoin acquired, total spending and the resulting balance. Earlier this month, Saylor shared a similar message before the company announced its next weekly transactions.

On October 4, he posted another accumulation chart with the words “More orange than ever,” while Strategy’s latest disclosed Bitcoin holdings stood at 847,666 BTC. Crypto.news previously covered the October teaser, which followed a confirmed purchase of 1,665 BTC during the preceding reporting period. The October 18 post comes after Strategy released another set of figures showing a smaller weekly Bitcoin acquisition and substantial preferred-share repurchases.

A new filing covering purchases after October 11 would be needed to determine whether the latest message preceded an actual transaction.

In its October 12 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Strategy reported purchasing 250 BTC between October 5 and October 11.

The company spent approximately $21.5 million on those coins, paying an average of $86,194 per Bitcoin, including fees and expenses. Following that purchase, total holdings reached 848,250 BTC. Strategy reported aggregate acquisition costs of approximately $64 billion and an average purchase price of $75,444 per coin.

The holding represents roughly 4.04% of Bitcoin’s maximum supply of 21 million coins. That comparison uses Bitcoin’s fixed maximum issuance, not the number of coins currently circulating or available on exchanges. Strategy funded $21 million of the latest purchase using proceeds from sales of its Class A common stock, MSTR. Another $500,000 came from existing company cash.

The company sold 125,183 MSTR shares during the week, generating approximately $21 million in net proceeds. Its filing showed that approximately $18.81 billion of MSTR shares remained available for future issuance and sale under its existing at-the-market program as of October 11.

The availability of that issuance capacity does not mean the company has already sold those shares or committed the proceeds to Bitcoin purchases. Strategy’s reported average cost of $75,444 remains below Bitcoin’s October 18 market price. CoinGecko placed BTC at approximately $81,059 during the market check, with its 24-hour trading range running from $80,823 to $82,178.

At that price, multiplying 848,250 BTC by $81,059 gives an indicative portfolio value of approximately $68.76 billion. Compared with its reported $64 billion acquisition cost, the difference is around $4.76 billion before accounting for other company financial obligations, taxes or valuation adjustments. Those estimates depend on the market price used for the calculation and are not equivalent to Strategy’s company-level net profit.

STRC buybacks exceed latest Bitcoin spending Although Strategy continued buying Bitcoin during the week ending October 11, most of the spending disclosed across its Bitcoin acquisitions and preferred-share repurchases went toward STRC.

The company bought back 1,932,145 shares of its Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Stretch Preferred Stock for approximately $192.4 million. That compares with the $21.5 million spent purchasing Bitcoin during the same seven-day reporting period.

Dividing the two amounts shows that the STRC repurchase was approximately 8.95 times the value of the Bitcoin purchase. The comparison covers two disclosed transactions, not all of Strategy’s corporate spending. STRC is one of several preferred-stock instruments issued by Strategy to raise capital and finance its operations. The security pays variable dividends, creating ongoing financial obligations for the company.

Repurchasing preferred shares can reduce the number of outstanding securities on which Strategy must make future dividend payments.

However, the October 12 filing does not establish that management chose to repurchase STRC specifically because its yield had reached 12.31%, as asserted in the supplied report. Strategy’s previous weekly capital allocation report covered the same $192.4 million buyback alongside the acquisition of 250 BTC.

A subsequent analysis of its share repurchases examined the distinction between funds used to buy cryptocurrency and those used to manage the company’s preferred-stock obligations.

According to the company’s official filing, approximately $354.8 million remained authorized under its digital credit securities repurchase program after the latest transactions. An additional $1 billion authorization remained available under its separate MSTR common-stock repurchase program. Neither authorization represents a completed transaction. The amounts establish the remaining capacity under the announced programs.

Strategy retains $5.52 billion in dollar assets Alongside its cryptocurrency holdings and preferred-share repurchases, Strategy reported substantial dollar-denominated assets. As of October 11, its designated USD Reserve totaled $4.88 billion, while other USD Cash stood at $640.5 million.

Combined, those balances equaled approximately $5.52 billion. The company’s filings describe the USD Reserve as money maintained to support preferred-stock dividends and interest payments on outstanding debt. Its separate USD Cash balance serves a different purpose, supporting general Bitcoin treasury activities, possible Bitcoin acquisitions, reserve additions and other capital-management uses.

During the October 5–11 period, Strategy used $500,000 of USD Cash to supplement the proceeds from common-stock sales used to purchase Bitcoin. The filing does not indicate that the entire combined $5.52 billion is intended for new Bitcoin acquisitions. The company had previously reported using part of its available cash to repurchase preferred shares, making its capital position dependent on more than the size of its Bitcoin holdings.

In related corporate treasury activity, an October 14 comparison of share buybacks examined how Strategy and Japanese Bitcoin holder Metaplanet were managing purchases of their own securities alongside cryptocurrency exposure. Strategy’s October 12 filing specified that $17.51 billion of STRC shares remained available for issuance and sale under its at-the-market offering program.

It reported no STRC shares sold during the latest week, while its common-stock sales supplied nearly all the funding for the newly acquired 250 BTC. The company ended that reporting period with $640.5 million in general-purpose USD Cash and $4.88 billion in its designated reserve.

XRP Ledger validator Vet argues that blockchain technology is transforming the future of finance through crypto assets like XRP, 24/7 trading, and easier access to global markets.

In a post on X, Vet explained that major innovations often begin with people who believe in the future. He believes some people doubt XRP’s potential because they are too pessimistic about what lies ahead.

“We live in a world people called Sci-Fi decades ago,” Vet wrote, adding that blockchain technology is disrupting traditional finance through tokenization, 24/7 trading, global access, and censorship resistance.

“New money, folks!” he added, expressing confidence in the XRP Ledger’s role in this transition.

Meanwhile, recent developments at Ripple provide examples of how blockchain-based financial services are moving closer to traditional banking infrastructure.

RLUSD Moves Into Banking and Global Payments Ripple is making it easier for banks and financial companies to adopt blockchain technology through its stablecoin, RLUSD, and the XRP Ledger (XRPL).

On October 15, Ripple announced a partnership with Cross River Bank to integrate RLUSD into the bank’s systems. The move supports transactions on the XRP Ledger.

The partnership will allow financial companies to send and settle payments using U.S. dollars and RLUSD 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Customers will be able to access RLUSD through a single connection without having to build their own blockchain infrastructure. The partnership also aims to support international payments and transfers.

Ripple also reported that RLUSD’s market capitalization had surpassed $2.5 billion, with more than $1 billion worth of the stablecoin issued on the XRP Ledger.

RLUSD payments are becoming part of the banking infrastructure fintechs already use.

We’re partnering with @CrossRiverBank to integrate RLUSD on the XRP Ledger into its core banking platform, providing 24/7 settlement within payment networks and greater flexibility to settle… pic.twitter.com/ZBLw9f40Oy

— Ripple (@Ripple) October 15, 2026

Ripple Prime Introduces 24/7 Trading Meanwhile, Ripple also announced new trading services through Ripple Prime on October 15. The service allows institutional investors to gain exposure to traditional assets, including stocks, commodities, and currencies, through markets that operate around the clock.

Ripple Prime also allows RLUSD to be used as collateral for certain transactions, giving the stablecoin another use case in institutional finance. The service is currently available in select markets, with plans to expand into other regions.

Ripple Partners With DriveWealth On October 14, Ripple announced a partnership with DriveWealth, a company that provides investment services to financial platforms.

The partnership aims to use RLUSD for payments and settlements, help investors move money across borders, and explore additional financial services.

The goal is to make it easier for international investors to fund their brokerage accounts quickly without relying entirely on traditional payment systems.

DriveWealth works with more than 100 partners worldwide, giving Ripple access to a broader network of investment platforms.

What This Means for the XRP Ledger These partnerships demonstrate how Ripple is working to integrate blockchain technology into traditional finance. The XRP Ledger can process transactions quickly, while RLUSD provides a digital representation of the U.S. dollar for supported payments and financial services.

If more banks and financial companies adopt these services, the XRP Ledger could see increased usage.

Ultimately, Vet believes that blockchain technology is reshaping global finance and that the XRP Ledger will play a significant role in that future. He encourages stakeholders to focus on long-term possibilities rather than dismissing them because of current limitations.

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.

Activity on the XRP Ledger just dropped sharply. Payment volume, which tracks XRP sent from one account to another, fell to 119.5 million XRP on October 17. That is a 72.3% drop in a single day. The 30-day average sits at 629.3 million, so the latest print is far below normal. The all-time high is 7 billion, which shows how small today's number is by comparison.

Price has no substance Data for October 18 shows approximately 37.5 million XRP so far, down another 68.6%. The day is not finished, so this figure will likely rise. Even so, the direction is clear. Over the past year, daily volume typically stayed between 300 million and 1 billion, with spikes to 2.5 billion in November and February. Readings near 100 million are rare.

XRP/USDT Chart by TradingViewOne weak day does not establish a trend. Payment volume jumps around a lot, and quiet weekends often deliver low numbers. Both drops landed on a Friday and Saturday. Still, the timing matters because price is also under pressure.

HOT Stories

Rally has no fuel leftXRP trades near $1.30 after falling from a September high around $1.66. It has now slipped beneath the 50, 100, and 200-day moving averages, which sit between $1.34 and $1.38. Those lines now act as resistance. The RSI is near 40, which indicates weak momentum but not an oversold market. Trading volume has also dwindled since the August spike.

You Might Also Like

The nearest support is the $1.25 to $1.27 area, where buyers stepped in during mid-September and again this week. A close beneath that zone would put $1.15 in view, and the $1.00 base from August after that. For bulls, the first target is a move back above $1.34 to $1.38. Without that, rallies are likely to fail.

The price drop and the weak chart point the same way. Fewer coins are moving, and fewer buyers are pushing the price up. If ledger activity returns to the 500 million level within the next few days, the drop was noise. If it remains low while XRP holds below the moving averages, the risk of a break beneath $1.25 grows.