Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Shiba Inu (SHIB), a leading meme coin in the cryptocurrency market, experienced a temporary halt in its token burning activity before a rapid reversal on Saturday. According to data from Shibburn, the official burn tracker, no SHIB was destroyed over a 24-hour period until a sudden transaction reignited the process.

SHIB burn rate surges after pauseEarlier on Saturday, Shibburn recorded zero SHIB tokens sent to burn addresses, signaling a brief pause in community efforts to reduce the circulating supply. This changed quickly when an unknown address labeled ‘0x8172’ executed a single burn transaction, sending 20,408,894 SHIB to the dead wallet.

The sudden activity caused the overall daily SHIB burn rate to climb by 725%, ending the brief period of inactivity for the dog-themed digital asset. As of press time, a total of 20.41 million SHIB had been burned over the past 24 hours.

Over the last seven days, the total amount of SHIB burned reached 87.64 million, while the 30-day tally climbed to around 693.20 million tokens, contributing to a lifetime burn total of 410,845,045,282,575 SHIB.

Shiba Inu’s ongoing burn initiatives aim to boost scarcity and potentially support the token’s price, which relies on community-driven mechanisms and official portals for token destruction.

Community and ecosystem burnsLongtime Shiba Inu community member Mazrael stated that community initiatives, including an ongoing burn portal, remain active. Despite the maintenance status of ShibTorch, a Shibarium-based burn tool, other infrastructure improvements continue within the ecosystem.

Data from ShibWatch indicated that SHIB burns within the project’s ecosystem have totaled 69.32 billion tokens to date, equal to $1.27 million based on prices at the time each burn occurred.

Mini dictionary: Shibburn is a community-driven platform that tracks and reports Shiba Inu token burns, helping investors monitor the reduction in circulating supply by aggregating on-chain burn transactions.

Mazrael explained that despite certain burn systems being under maintenance, “there’s still the community burn portal being done” to support ongoing SHIB reduction efforts.

PeriodBurned SHIBBurn Rate/Value24 hours20.41 million+725%7 days87.64 million–30 days693.20 million–Lifetime410.85 trillion–Ecosystem burns69.32 billion$1.27 millionPrice performance and market sentimentAlongside the activity surrounding SHIB burns, the token’s price declined 3.92% over 24 hours to $0.000004919, reflecting weakness in the broader cryptocurrency market.

Market sentiment has been weighed down by concerns over large-scale borrowing by technology companies to build artificial intelligence infrastructure, which spilled over into the digital asset sector. As a result, most major cryptocurrencies have been falling since mid-week.

Shiba Inu mirrored this trend with increased volatility, dropping to an intraday low of $0.00000485. Earlier in the week, SHIB posted gains, but quickly reversed on Wednesday before briefly recovering and then continuing its downward trajectory.

Blockchain

24 October 2026
|
10:23

Offchain Labs became the sole member of Arbitrum’s Developer Guild, collecting all of its revenue, and proposed that the Arbitrum Foundation sign off on new Stylus activations on Arbitrum One.

Key Takeaways

Guild members need 12-18 months of production work

Guild takes 2% of chains’ net protocol revenue

No active Stylus contract expires before August 2027

Trail of Bits to audit the activation contract

The Arbitrum Foundation announced the Guild’s first member on October 23, the same day Offchain posted its Stylus activation proposal.

How the Guild is funded
The Developer Guild was first introduced in January 2024 alongside the Arbitrum Expansion Program, which lets projects launch their own Arbitrum chains. Offchain was invited in recognition of its role as the protocol’s primary architect and maintainer. It will receive the funds the Guild has already collected and 100% of its revenue for as long as it remains the only member. The Foundation describes the Guild’s funding as “relatively nascent” and did not disclose the balance.

Revenue source
Share to the Guild

Net protocol revenue from Arbitrum chains outside One and Nova
2%

Arbitrum One Priority Gas Auction proceeds
3%

Arbitrum One Sequencer Fast Feed proceeds
3%

Under the Guild specification, chains launched through the program pay 10% of their net protocol revenue to the ecosystem: eight points to the DAO treasury and two to the Guild. A chain with $1 million in qualifying revenue would send $80,000 to the treasury and $20,000 to the Guild. More than 30 chains already contribute, according to the Foundation.

The Foundation expects the arrangement to push Offchain to focus more of its work on growing the DAO’s revenue, now that it shares in those cash flows. It also expects the Guild to become one of Offchain’s funding sources, so that the company asks the DAO for less in future.

The Foundation decides who else gets in
Membership is by invitation, with several conditions. A member’s business model must rely substantially on Arbitrum succeeding, its core components should have been in production for 12 to 18 months, its code must sit in public repositories under approved licences, and it must pass identity checks, sign an agreement with the Foundation and publish yearly updates.

Under the specification, the Foundation approves members, decides each one’s share of the funding and can suspend or remove them at its sole discretion. Trivial activity such as typo fixes or dependency bumps does not count as meaningful work, and member names and allocations are to be published periodically on the governance forum. Every example of qualifying work in the document is an Offchain Labs repository, from the Nitro node software to the cargo-stylus toolchain.

The same day, Offchain proposed a Foundation key for Stylus
Stylus lets developers write Arbitrum contracts in languages such as Rust that compile to WebAssembly. On October 2, the Security Council paused new Stylus activations on Arbitrum One and Nova, citing a growing number of AI-assisted attacks using hand-crafted WebAssembly programs that skip the standard Stylus toolchain and can degrade chain performance. Known bugs affect chain availability, and no attack allowing theft of user funds has been found, the Council said.

Under Offchain’s proposal, a developer would submit source code to an auditor from the Arbitrum Security Program. The auditor would rebuild the contract with cargo-stylus, the same toolchain listed in the Guild specification, confirm it matches the deployed code and contains no hand-crafted WebAssembly, and post a pass or fail on the forum. After a pass, a Foundation-controlled multisig would issue a signature, and the developer would activate the contract through a new activation contract. The audit does not review a contract’s business logic, and the Foundation would rely on the auditor’s result without making its own assessment.

For most builders, the change is narrower than the pause suggests.

Unchanged

Solidity contracts deploy and run as normal.

Active Stylus contracts stay callable and renewable.

ArbOS 61 renewed all active contracts on One, so none expires before August 20, 2027.

Through the new gate

New Stylus code, including new versions of existing apps.

Reactivating expired contracts or after a Stylus version change.

Arbitrum One only. Nova, which is being scaled back, is excluded.

The gate also carries trade-offs, which the proposal itself lists.

The signing right has no automatic expiry, though the DAO can change or revoke it.

Requests would be handled on a reasonable-efforts basis, with no fixed turnaround.

A compromised signer could approve harmful code, and the proposal adds no way to deactivate a contract.

The proposal goes next to a Snapshot temperature check. Trail of Bits will audit the activation contract, and the report, source code and multisig configuration are due before the on-chain vote. A vote against would not lift the pause, and the proposal asks the DAO for no new funding.

Where that leaves ARB holders
The Guild pays its members, and the 8% share goes to the DAO treasury. Neither arrangement pays ARB holders directly. The token’s documented role is governance, which here means voting on the Stylus proposal and on any later change to the signing right, while Guild membership rests with the Foundation. As an earlier look at why ecosystem revenue does not automatically become ARB-holder income explained, a bigger funding pool is not a claim on it.

Snapshot result on the Stylus proposal

Trail of Bits report and the published multisig signers

First published Guild allocation and the size of the pool

A second Guild member, and how much of the revenue Offchain keeps

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Governance proposals can change before approval and implementation.

Author

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

Bitcoin is approaching a make-or-break weekend. After failing to hold $83,000, the cryptocurrency is now facing a more uncomfortable level at $80,000.

Analyst Benjamin Cowen warns that a weekly close below $83,000 on October 25 would strengthen his bearish outlook for the rest of 2026. His warning comes as Bitcoin faces pressure well beyond its own price chart.

Why Bitcoin’s $80,000 Level MattersThe latest failed rally has already punished bullish traders. During one four-hour selloff, long positions accounted for $91.19 million of $95.22 million in crypto liquidations.

More concerning, Glassnode estimates that companies holding Bitcoin on their balance sheets paid about $80,000 per coin on average.

Falling below that level would put the average corporate treasury position into a loss. It would not automatically force companies to sell, but it could weaken confidence.

A plausible path to consider (in order).

Becomes void if Bitcoin gets and holds back above $83k

-Bitcoin weekly close below $83k (again)
-Fakeout confirmed (Oct 25)
-Fed does not raise rates (Oct 28)
-PCE comes in hot (Oct 29)
-Oil spikes over the Iran war (~$120)
-Long end…

— Benjamin Cowen (@benjamincowen) October 24, 2026 A separate BeInCrypto analysis identifies $77,876 as the next downside level if selling persists, followed by a support zone between roughly $76,700 and $72,500.

US spot Bitcoin ETFs also lost about $322 million on October 22, suggesting institutional buying has weakened.

What Happens to Bitcoin Next Week?The calendar offers little relief. The Federal Reserve meets October 27–28, with Cowen expecting interest rates to stay unchanged. September inflation data follows on October 29.

Oil adds another complication. Brent settled at $116.72 on Friday as Middle East supply fears intensified. Expensive energy could keep inflation elevated, while rising Treasury yields make speculative investments less attractive.

Bitcoin’s Extreme Volatility in OctoberHistory also gives bears ammunition. Binance Research puts Bitcoin’s average decline during previous US midterm election years at 56%. But that record covers only three Bitcoin cycles, making it a warning rather than a reliable prediction.

There is also a clear way for Bitcoin to break Cowen’s bearish scenario.

For now, the immediate test is whether buyers defend $80,000. A sustained recovery above $83,000 would weaken the bearish case.

Losing $80,000 could expose Bitcoin to another wave of selling just as November’s US midterm elections approach.

The Bitget hacker has moved $19.48 million in 52 transfers, almost entirely in Bitcoin, as Arkham tracks fresh outflows from wallets linked to the exchange’s September breach.

Summary

Arkham tracked $19.48 million across 52 transfers, with Bitcoin accounting for $19.33 million. Hacker-linked wallets sent $78.01 million to new addresses between Oct. 15 and Oct. 23. Arkham valued remaining labeled holdings at $242.54 million, mostly held in Bitcoin. The latest transfers’ destinations remain unidentified, leaving potential laundering unconfirmed. Arkham put the transfers between 10:02 UTC on Oct. 21 and 02:48 UTC on Oct. 24, with Bitcoin accounting for $19.33 million and ETH making up the rest. Its thread said almost all the funds went to new addresses.

The blockchain intelligence firm framed its update as a question.

“Is the Bitget Hacker laundering the stolen funds?”

Arkham’s posts do not name an exchange, mixer, or over-the-counter desk receiving the latest transfers. The update documents money leaving labeled wallets, without establishing whether those assets were sold, cashed out, or recovered.

Bitget hacker movements total $78 million since Oct. 15 Across a longer reporting window, Arkham said the attacker had sent $78.01 million to new addresses since Oct. 15. Its daily breakdown showed $23.31 million moving on Oct. 15, followed by $8.68 million on Oct. 16 and $1.15 million on Oct. 17.

Another $10.51 million moved on Oct. 18. After no recorded movement on Oct. 19, the firm listed $15.13 million on Oct. 20, $11.74 million on Oct. 21, $184,160 on Oct. 22, and $7.3 million on Oct. 23.

The dates in Arkham’s opening post cover 64 hours and 46 minutes. A later post in the same thread described the $19.48 million as moving over “the past 48 hours,” leaving a mismatch between its shorthand description and the precise timestamps.

Using the firm’s rounded asset figures, Bitcoin represented approximately 99.2% of that $19.48 million. The implied ETH component was $150,000, although Arkham did not provide an exact token quantity in the opening post.

Arkham’s remaining balance uses a $350 million baseline In its thread, Arkham valued the hacker’s remaining labeled holdings at $242.54 million, including 2,960.01 BTC worth $241.99 million. It listed smaller balances on Ethereum, Hypercore, Solana and Tron.

The firm described that balance as 69% of a $350 million theft. Bitget’s own accounting puts the incident at approximately $387.5 million, after revising its initial $351.6 million estimate.

In its Sep. 25 recovery notice, the exchange said the revision included Zcash and TRON assets omitted from the first calculation. Bitget attributed the change to a more complete classification of the original transfers and said it did not represent further theft.

Against Bitget’s $387.5 million estimate, Arkham’s $242.54 million snapshot equals approximately 62.6%. Neither percentage establishes how much has been recovered, because the figures compare remaining labeled holdings with dollar estimates from the original incident.

Arkham data shows $239.34 million, including approximately 2,958 BTC valued at $238.79 million.

Source: Arkham Earlier tracing identified CoinJoin and cross-chain routes Fund movements linked to the attack began before October. As crypto.news previously reported, AMLBot traced roughly four BTC into CoinJoin in September, describing the activity as an apparent effort to obscure stolen funds.

AMLBot’s account followed assets from TRON into USDT, across to Ethereum through USDT0, and through ETH swaps and THORChain before they reached Bitcoin. The firm said approximately 4.59 BTC emerged from that route before the Bitcoin was split into smaller amounts.

Independent tracing by Bitquery documented other September conversions through THORChain and Chainflip. Its investigation matched 66 swaps to 126.71 BTC in payments by 14:38 UTC on Sep. 25, while identifying two swaps still waiting at that snapshot.

Those historical routes do not establish the destinations of Arkham’s latest transfers. The October screenshots contain transaction graphs but no readable transaction-level evidence connecting the new outflows to the same services.

Bitget says withdrawals have resumed while recovery continues Bitget’s incident explainer, updated Oct. 20, says its phased withdrawal restoration finished on Oct. 2 after BTC, ETH and USDT services reopened in September. The company says customer account balances remain unaffected and that it has identified no further unauthorized transfers following containment.

In the same explainer, Bitget attributed the breach to a vulnerability in a third-party security product. The company said the attacker obtained high-level internal credentials and submitted fraudulent withdrawal commands that bypassed existing risk controls. Bitget said the affected systems were isolated and the vulnerability was fixed.

Earlier coverage of the withdrawal reopening and reserves recorded CEO Gracy Chen’s statement that the Protection Fund had returned above $300 million on Sep. 30. Bitget has said the fund would absorb the financial loss from the breach.

The Sep. 25 notice names Mandiant and SlowMist as investigation partners and publishes receiving addresses across Ethereum-compatible networks, XRP Ledger, Zcash and TRON. Its recovery section says some assets had already been frozen through coordination with industry partners, but does not give an aggregate frozen amount in that notice.

The exchange’s recovery program offers separate 5% rewards for eligible voluntary actions that directly freeze or recover affected assets. Bitget excludes actions carried out under court orders, law-enforcement requests, or other legal processes, and retains discretion over eligibility and payment.

Franklin Templeton has added roughly $150 million in sgBENJI shares to the XRP Ledger (XRPL). The move nearly quadrupled the asset manager’s tokenized fund position on the ledger overnight.

On-chain data shows two separate $75 million cash subscription receipts recorded on Wednesday.

The matching share issuances followed on Thursday. Each batch delivered just over 72.18 million sgBENJI shares at a price of $1.039 per share.

Before the inflow, Franklin held roughly 48 million shares on the XRPL. That figure has now climbed to nearly 193 million shares. At current pricing, the position is worth approximately $200 million.

One Wallet, Eight Signers, What the Structure Means
The entire sgBENJI balance on XRPL sits inside a single wallet. That wallet shares the same eight signing addresses as Franklin’s issuing account.

Any two of those eight addresses can jointly approve a transaction. Franklin retains the right to freeze balances or recover tokens if needed.

This design is typical of regulated tokenized fund structures. Issuers use multi-sig accounts to enforce compliance controls while keeping assets on a public ledger.

Still, concentrating the full position in one wallet raises operational questions, particularly around who the end investor is. Franklin has not clarified whether the wallet is an omnibus account holding multiple clients or a single large allocation.

The move extends a broader institutional push on XRPL. Ripple’s partnership with DBS and Franklin Templeton, announced in September 2025, set the stage for this: it enabled DBS Digital Exchange clients to swap between sgBENJI and Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin and explore using the fund tokens as collateral.

Franklin’s commitment to XRPL is not incidental. Franklin Templeton’s digital assets head has publicly backed XRP for its practical utility, citing throughput, cost, and reliability as reasons institutions are choosing the ledger over alternatives.

XRPL’s RWA Market Grows, Franklin Now Ranks Second
RWA.xyz now ranks Franklin Templeton second among tokenized asset issuers on XRPL. Ripple’s RLUSD leads with roughly $930 million.

Ondo Finance sits third at $185 million. Franklin’s sgBENJI position at ~$200 million slots in between.

This ranking shift matters in context. XRPL’s real-world asset market cap hit $2.25 billion earlier this year, rising 124% in Q1 2026 alone. Franklin’s fresh inflow adds weight to that trend.

The asset manager has also been laying regulatory groundwork in parallel. It secured SEC clearance for its funds to hold tokenized assets and met with the SEC’s Crypto Task Force on 1940 Act issues to clarify how tokenized funds interact with the Innovation Exemption.

Beyond regulation, Franklin has been expanding utility for its tokenized shares. Its partnership with Bybit lets eligible clients pledge sgBENJI shares as collateral to secure stablecoin credit lines while still earning fund yield.

It also tapped HashKey to bring the tokenized fund to Asia, reaching professional investors through HashKey Exchange’s Earn channel.

Ripple, for its part, has continued deepening infrastructure on the ledger. Its strategic investments in ZILO and Licuido expand regulated token issuance and collateral services, building exactly the rails that institutions like Franklin now use.

For those exploring where to access real-world assets on-chain, leading crypto exchanges now offer RWA trading options as the sector grows.

Co-founder Zon's preliminary read points to a MoveVM flaw, while D2 Finance traced the payouts to LayerZero adapters on Ethereum.

Initia's chain stays halted after an attacker minted and bridged out tokens

Posted October 23, 2026 at 10:35 pm ET.

Anyone holding assets on Initia is waiting on a restart. Initia’s layer 1 and its rollups have been offline since 11:41 a.m. ET on Friday, when the team cited a “security incident,” and it had not said when they would come back as of 5:52 p.m. ET. Initia said in the same notice that it was working “to establish the full scope of any impact with security teams, validators, and exchanges.”

Co-founder Zon pointed to Initia’s own software, citing preliminary findings. He wrote that it was “a Day 0 bug related to Initia’s MoveVM on CosmosSDK that allowed the exploiter to mint additional tokens on the Initia L1 but does not apply to native INIT tokens.” The attacker managed to “mint and bridge out ~$2.7m worth of AUSD, ETH, and USDC before the chain was paused,” he added.

Pseudonymous researcher Spreek flagged the attack at 11:27 a.m. ET, 14 minutes before the halt, estimating $2.6 million cashed out.

Get Unchained’s crypto news in your inbox with the free Unchained Daily newsletter.

How the Funds Left D2 Finance, which published a breakdown of the transactions, said one transaction at 10:59 a.m. ET minted 2 million AUSD on the Initia side. By D2’s account, those unbacked tokens were burned and sent over LayerZero to Ethereum, where OFT adapters, lockbox contracts holding the real tokens behind Initia’s bridged versions, paid out. D2 wrote that “an OFT adapter cannot check whether burned tokens were ever backed.”

D2 said the attacker pulled 1.4 million AUSD, 71% of the AUSD adapter’s holdings, leaving about 576,000, plus 105 ETH, 96% of the native-ETH adapter. Another 1.08 million USDC arrived as new mints through Circle’s CCTP. In D2’s telling, $2.65 million had reached Ethereum within seven minutes and 21 seconds of the mint.

Agora Says AUSD Is Unaffected Agora, which issues AUSD, said at 12:57 p.m. ET that it “has no smart contracts deployed on Initia.” At 2:26 p.m. ET it added that “AUSD does not exist on Initia,” and that “AUSD is fully backed.” Agora’s statements indicate the token minted on Initia was a bridged representation rather than AUSD itself. D2 said the AUSD that left came from an Ethereum lockbox adapter backing that bridged token.

Onchain records show the 1.4 million AUSD sat in the attacker’s Ethereum address for about 84 seconds before it was traded away on the 1inch aggregator at 11:03 a.m. ET. Agora froze that address at 12:31 p.m. ET, roughly 89 minutes later and before its first statement, when the address held no AUSD.

The same address sent 1,135.5 ETH, which D2 valued at about $2.7 million, to a newly used wallet at 11:41 a.m. ET, the minute the halt took effect.

Initia’s own account has not confirmed Zon’s loss figure or published a post-mortem. It said it would post verified updates through its official channels.

Related Listen: Who’s to Blame for How KelpDAO’s DVN Was Set Up? KelpDAO or LayerZero?

AI-assisted content: This article was produced with the assistance of AI tools and was reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by a member of the Unchained editorial team before publication.

In May 2023, the Ethereum blockchain faced its first inactivity leak, a mechanism designed to restore chain finalization amid prolonged network disruptions. This feature aims to reduce the voting power of validators who become unreachable, redistributing their power to active validators. Our investigation delves into the safety implications of this inactivity leak within the Ethereum blockchain. Through theoretical analysis, we explore how Byzantine validators might expedite the finalization of conflicting branches or reach a voting power exceeding the critical safety threshold of one-third. Additionally, we revisit the probabilistic bouncing attack, demonstrating how the inactivity leak might allow Byzantine validators to breach safety thresholds. This article uncovers how penalizing inactive nodes can undermine blockchain properties, especially when Byzantine validators can coordinate their actions.

I. Overview
Background
In September 2022, Ethereum transitioned from a proof-of-work (PoW) consensus mechanism to a proof-of-stake (PoS) protocol. This change aimed to improve energy efficiency and scalability. The Ethereum PoS protocol is unique due to its hybrid nature, combining elements of classical Byzantine Fault-Tolerant (BFT) Consensus with the Nakamoto-style blockchain framework. In BFT blockchains, validators explicitly vote on block proposals, ensuring that once a block is added, it remains permanently incorporated. In contrast, Nakamoto-style blockchains allow forks but eventually reconcile to a single chain.

Motivation
The motivation behind this study stems from Ethereum's introduction of the inactivity leak, a penalty mechanism designed to address prolonged network disruptions. When validators become unreachable, their voting power is reduced and redistributed to active validators. While this mechanism aims to restore chain finalization and maintain liveness during network partitions, it raises significant concerns about its impact on the blockchain's safety. Specifically, the potential for Byzantine validators to exploit the inactivity leak to expedite the finalization of conflicting branches or gain a voting power exceeding the critical safety threshold of one-third necessitates a thorough investigation.

Contributions
This article is mainly based on the many sources, one of our main contents came from Byzantine Attacks Exploiting Penalties in Ethereum PoS from authors: Ulysse Pavloff, Yackolley Amoussou-Genou, Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni

This paper makes several key contributions:

Formal Analysis of the Inactivity Leak: They provide the first formal description of the inactivity leak, detailing its operational mechanics and its intended purpose within the Ethereum PoS protocol.

Impact on Safety: Our analysis explores various configurations and scenarios to understand how the inactivity leak influences the safety of the Ethereum blockchain, particularly under the influence of Byzantine validators.

Revisiting Known Attacks: We reexamine the probabilistic bouncing attack in the context of the inactivity leak, demonstrating how this attack can be leveraged to probabilistically breach safety thresholds.

Theoretical and Practical Insights: The findings offer valuable insights for both theoretical research and practical implementations of penalty mechanisms in PoS blockchains.

Organization of the Paper
The paper is structured to provide a comprehensive exploration of the inactivity leak and its implications. The organization is as follows:

Introduction: An overview of the motivation, contributions, and structure of the paper.

System Model and Ethereum Protocol: A detailed description of the Ethereum PoS protocol, including its safety and liveness trade-offs, Byzantine fault tolerance, and the inactivity leak mechanism.

Analysis of Safety Loss Scenarios: An in-depth analysis of scenarios where safety might be compromised, including conflicting finalization with honest validators and coordinated Byzantine attacks.

Revisiting the Probabilistic Bouncing Attack: A thorough reexamination of the probabilistic bouncing attack, assessing its impact in the presence of the inactivity leak and presenting simulation results.

Future Work: A discussion of the implications of our findings for Ethereum and other PoS blockchains, along with directions for future research.

Conclusions: A summary of our findings, emphasizing the importance of refining penalty mechanisms to ensure blockchain safety and stability.

II. System Model and Ethereum Protocol
Ethereum PoS Protocol Overview
Ethereum's shift to proof-of-stake (PoS) in September 2022 was a landmark event, transitioning from the energy-intensive proof-of-work (PoW) to a more sustainable and scalable consensus mechanism. The Ethereum PoS protocol combines elements of classical Byzantine Fault-Tolerant (BFT) Consensus with the Nakamoto-style blockchain, creating a hybrid model. In this system, validators are selected based on their stake to propose and validate new blocks, aiming to achieve consensus through voting. The protocol leverages a fork-choice rule to determine the canonical chain from a tree-like structure of blocks, ensuring that the blockchain can adapt and reconcile forks to maintain a single chain.

Safety and Liveness Trade-offs
In the context of blockchain protocols, safety and liveness are critical properties that need to be balanced. Safety ensures that the blockchain does not fork, meaning that once a block is finalized, it cannot be revoked. Liveness, on the other hand, ensures that the blockchain continues to grow and accept new transactions.

BFT Consensus: BFT blockchains achieve safety by using super-majority quorums to finalize blocks, preventing forks but potentially halting growth during network partitions or failures. This trade-off means that while the blockchain is safe, it may not always be live.

Nakamoto-style Blockchains: These blockchains are designed to remain live even during network disruptions, as they allow for the existence of multiple forks. Eventually, they reconcile to a single chain, but this means they can experience temporary forks, which poses a challenge to safety.

Ethereum PoS: Ethereum PoS aims to balance these trade-offs by maintaining a finalized chain alongside a forkable chain. The finalized chain is protected by BFT mechanisms, ensuring safety, while the forkable chain continues to grow, ensuring liveness.

Byzantine Fault Tolerance
Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) is a critical aspect of blockchain security, ensuring that the protocol can withstand malicious actions by up to one-third of the validators. In BFT systems, validators vote on proposed blocks, and a block is only considered finalized if it receives votes from a super-majority of validators. This mechanism ensures that even if some validators act maliciously or become unreachable, the blockchain can still achieve consensus and finalize blocks.

Inactivity Leak Mechanism
Definition and Purpose

The inactivity leak is a penalty mechanism introduced to handle scenarios where validators become inactive or unreachable due to network disruptions. When validators fail to participate in the consensus process for an extended period, their stake and voting power are gradually reduced. This reduction is intended to reallocate voting power to active validators, thereby restoring the blockchain's ability to achieve finalization and maintain liveness.

Impact on Voting Power

The inactivity leak directly affects the distribution of voting power among validators. By penalizing inactive validators, the mechanism ensures that the remaining active validators have increased influence in the consensus process. This reallocation is crucial for restoring liveness during network partitions, as it allows the blockchain to continue finalizing blocks despite the absence of some validators. However, this mechanism also introduces potential risks, particularly if Byzantine validators can exploit it to gain a disproportionate amount of voting power.

Restoring Liveness: During network partitions or disruptions, the inactivity leak helps maintain liveness by reducing the influence of inactive validators and empowering active ones to continue finalizing blocks.

Risks to Safety: The redistribution of voting power can create scenarios where Byzantine validators, through coordinated actions, may exploit the inactivity leak to increase their influence. This can lead to safety breaches, such as the finalization of conflicting chains or exceeding the critical one-third threshold of Byzantine voting power.

Ethereum's Unique Hybrid Model

Ethereum PoS's hybrid model of maintaining a finalized and non-finalized chain within a single data structure aims to offer the best of both BFT and Nakamoto-style blockchains. The finalized chain guarantees safety, ensuring that once a block is finalized, it remains unaltered. The non-finalized chain allows for continued growth and transaction processing, ensuring liveness even during adverse network conditions.

The Ethereum PoS protocol's innovative combination of BFT and Nakamoto-style elements, along with the introduction of the inactivity leak, represents a significant advancement in blockchain technology. However, this complexity also introduces new challenges, particularly regarding the balance between safety and liveness and the potential exploitation by Byzantine validators. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for ensuring the robustness and security of the Ethereum blockchain.

III. Analysis of Safety Loss Scenarios
Conflicting Finalization with Honest Validators
Network Partitions and CAP Theorem

Network partitions can disrupt the Ethereum blockchain's operation, potentially leading to conflicting finalization of blocks. The CAP theorem, which states that a distributed system can only achieve two out of three properties—consistency, availability, and partition tolerance—underlines the challenge of maintaining both safety and liveness during network partitions. In Ethereum PoS, this means that while efforts are made to maintain liveness by allowing the chain to continue growing, safety can be compromised if different parts of the network finalize conflicting blocks independently.

Independent Finalization on Different Chains

During network partitions, validators in different network segments may finalize different blocks independently. This situation arises when validators in one partition finalize one set of blocks, while validators in another partition finalize a different set. As a result, the blockchain can face conflicting finalization, where multiple chains claim to be the valid continuation of the blockchain. This scenario challenges the blockchain's safety guarantees, as transactions on conflicting branches may lead to inconsistencies and potential double-spending.

Coordinated Byzantine Attacks
Accelerated Conflicting Finalization

Byzantine validators can exploit network partitions and the inactivity leak to accelerate conflicting finalization intentionally. In scenarios where Byzantine validators strategically coordinate their actions, they can exploit the reduced influence of honest validators (due to network partitions or penalties from the inactivity leak) to finalize conflicting blocks quickly. This coordinated action undermines the blockchain's safety guarantees, as it introduces uncertainty about the true state of the blockchain.

Breaching the Safety Threshold

Another significant risk arises when Byzantine validators coordinate to exceed the critical one-third threshold of voting power. In Ethereum PoS, maintaining safety relies on ensuring that less than one-third of validators are Byzantine. However, if Byzantine validators can increase their influence through strategic actions during network disruptions or by exploiting the inactivity leak, they may collectively control more than one-third of the voting power. This breach of the safety threshold can lead to irreversible decisions and compromises the integrity of the blockchain.

IV. Revisiting the Probabilistic Bouncing Attack
Original Attack Description
The probabilistic bouncing attack is a known strategy in blockchain environments, particularly relevant in proof-of-stake (PoS) protocols like Ethereum. This attack exploits periods of network uncertainty or synchronization to delay block finalization intentionally. Validators participating in the consensus process strategically withhold their votes or propose conflicting blocks, leading to prolonged ambiguity about which chain should be considered the canonical one. By introducing delays in the finalization process, the attack undermines the blockchain's liveness guarantees, as transactions may remain pending or reversible for extended periods.

sources: arxiv.org

Impact of the Inactivity Leak
The introduction of the inactivity leak mechanism amplifies the effectiveness of the probabilistic bouncing attack. This penalty mechanism penalizes validators who become inactive due to network disruptions or strategic inactivity. As inactive validators lose stake and voting power over time, active validators gain a disproportionate influence in the consensus process. This redistribution of voting power alters the dynamics of the blockchain's security model, potentially creating opportunities for malicious actors to exploit.

In the context of the probabilistic bouncing attack, the inactivity leak exacerbates the impact during periods of network synchrony. Byzantine validators can strategically become inactive to avoid penalties and then coordinate attacks when network conditions are favorable. By delaying finalization through strategic inactivity and subsequent coordinated actions, malicious validators can prolong uncertainty about the blockchain's state, further compromising its liveness and integrity.

Conditions for Safety Threshold Breach
Our analysis identifies specific conditions under which the probabilistic bouncing attack, augmented by the inactivity leak, can breach the safety threshold of Ethereum PoS. These conditions include prolonged network partitions, strategic coordination among Byzantine validators to exploit penalties, and the operational mechanics of the inactivity leak itself. The combination of these factors creates a scenario where Byzantine validators can probabilistically control the blockchain's decision-making process, potentially leading to irreversible decisions or conflicting finalizations.

Simulation Results and Discussion
Simulation studies provide empirical evidence of how the probabilistic bouncing attack, enhanced by the inactivity leak, impacts Ethereum's safety and liveness properties. By modeling various attack scenarios and network conditions, we illustrate the potential vulnerabilities introduced by the inactivity leak and the strategies employed by Byzantine validators to exploit them. Discussions delve into the implications of these findings for blockchain security and propose strategies for mitigating the risks posed by such attacks.

source: arxiv.org

V. Future Work
Summary of Findings
Our study has highlighted significant vulnerabilities in Ethereum's proof-of-stake (PoS) protocol, particularly concerning the probabilistic bouncing attack and the inactivity leak mechanism. These findings underscore the importance of enhancing blockchain security while maintaining robustness in consensus mechanisms. We have identified critical areas where future research and development efforts can focus to address these challenges effectively.

Implications for Ethereum and Other PoS Blockchains
The implications extend beyond Ethereum to other PoS blockchains that utilize penalty mechanisms and face similar security challenges. Understanding these vulnerabilities provides a foundation for improving the design and implementation of future blockchain protocols. Key implications include:

Security Enhancements: Develop more resilient penalty mechanisms that mitigate the risks posed by Byzantine attacks and strategic network disruptions.

Consensus Protocol Optimization: Refine consensus algorithms to improve their ability to handle network partitions and maintain safety and liveness guarantees simultaneously.

Governance and Protocol Design: Implement governance structures that can adapt dynamically to emerging threats and vulnerabilities, ensuring continuous improvement and adaptation of blockchain protocols.

Directions for Future Research
Future research efforts should prioritize the following areas to advance blockchain security and resilience:

Enhanced Penalty Mechanisms: Investigate novel penalty mechanisms that discourage malicious behavior while incentivizing active participation and network stability.

Dynamic Governance Models: Explore governance frameworks that enable swift responses to security threats, including protocol upgrades and adjustments to consensus rules.

Formal Verification and Security Audits: Conduct rigorous formal verification and security audits of blockchain protocols to identify and mitigate potential vulnerabilities before deployment.

Cross-Chain Interoperability: Address interoperability challenges between different PoS blockchains to foster collaboration and enhance overall blockchain ecosystem resilience.

Related Work and References
Our study builds upon existing research in Ethereum PoS, Byzantine fault tolerance, and consensus algorithm design. Further exploration into related work can provide deeper insights and inspire innovative solutions to address current and future challenges in blockchain security.

Conclusion
Our exploration of the probabilistic bouncing attack and the inactivity leak in Ethereum PoS has underscored critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. By focusing on enhancing security mechanisms, optimizing consensus protocols, and fostering collaborative research, the blockchain community can strengthen the resilience of PoS blockchains against malicious actors and network disruptions. Through these efforts, we aim to contribute to the evolution of blockchain technologies towards more secure, efficient, and trustworthy decentralized systems.

Share

Altcoins

24 October 2026 | 12:11 Grayscale’s latest valuation data shows Aave and Jupiter with positive earnings yields, yet holders of both tokens face negative yields once buybacks, rewards and supply growth are netted.

Key Takeaways ✓AAVE: 3.7% earnings yield, -1.0% holder yield ✓JUP: 3.5% earnings yield, -2.6% holder yield ✓Aave bought 205,000 AAVE in ten months ✓Litterbox Trust has burned about 134 million JUP Grayscale head of research Zach Pandl set out both measures in an October 21 note on crypto valuations.

Earnings are positive, holder yields are not Grayscale’s adjusted earnings yield divides a protocol’s earnings by its circulating market value, then subtracts the rate at which circulating supply grew. Its tokenholder yield counts only what reaches holders: staking rewards plus buybacks, minus new issuance, divided by circulating market value. Earnings here means fees left after paying lenders, liquidity providers and other suppliers.

Both measures subtract supply growth, so the gap between them approximates earnings that stayed with the protocol instead of reaching holders, as long as Grayscale’s issuance figure tracks circulating-supply growth. A negative tokenholder yield also means, by Grayscale’s formula, that new issuance outweighed buybacks and staking rewards combined.

AAVE

Adjusted earnings yield3.7%

Tokenholder yield−1.0%

Gap≈ 4.7 points

JUP

Adjusted earnings yield3.5%

Tokenholder yield−2.6%

Gap≈ 6.1 points

Source: Grayscale, chart accompanying its October 21 note.

Aave’s buybacks refill a reserve that pays out AAVE Aave began buying AAVE on the open market in April 2025. Its official documentation lists a $50 million annual budget, with weekly purchases of $250,000 to $1.75 million executed by the Aave Finance Committee. The DAO’s funding report says the program acquired more than 205,000 AAVE, about 1.28% of total supply, in its first 10 months.

Aave does not burn the tokens it buys. They go to the Aave DAO Ecosystem Reserve, which pays staking rewards, grants and service providers, so AAVE taken off the market can return to circulation. That may help explain how a sustained buyback program sits beside a negative tokenholder yield.

Operating costs draw on the same revenue. A March governance proposal sought to cut the buyback budget to $30 million. It cited borrow-fee revenue about 25% below its peak, January 2026 revenue of $7.95 million against $13.5 million a year earlier, and an optimistic 2026 operating budget of $190 million against 2025 revenue of $142 million. The proposal also made the case against bigger buybacks: spending on GHO stablecoin liquidity and growth could return more to holders than repurchases.

Jupiter spends half its onchain revenue on JUP Jupiter’s transparency page says 50% of onchain revenue has gone to the Litterbox Trust since February 2025, which buys JUP through automated onchain purchases. The trust operates as a long-term reserve and has burned about 134 million JUP. The other half of onchain revenue and all offchain revenue fund the team’s operations, with any excess going to treasury reserves.

In Grayscale’s figures, those purchases and burns have not kept pace with new JUP entering circulation. The note names token unlocks alongside issuance as sources of dilution, which makes Jupiter’s unlock schedule the other half of the JUP picture.

Ordinary holders sit below the published figure. JUP holders receive no direct share of protocol fees, and Active Staking Rewards go quarterly to stakers based on time-weighted stake. Under Jupiter’s tokenomics rules, locked team tokens cannot earn them. Because Grayscale’s tokenholder yield includes staking rewards, anyone holding JUP or AAVE without staking earns less than it shows.

Burns remove tokens for good, minus new minting A burn is the one destination that cannot pay tokens back out, though minting can still eat into it. PancakeSwap’s September burn report puts numbers on that offset.

2,963,567 CAKE burned
−
652,564 CAKE minted
=
2,311,003 CAKE net cut

Minting offset about 22% of the burn. The report excludes mints tied directly to burning and spreads weekly burns across reporting months. According to PancakeSwap’s tokenomics documentation, minted CAKE funds farms, the lottery and ecosystem growth.

Hyperliquid burns without a matching mint on this side. Its fee documentation says the Assistance Fund converts allocated trading fees into HYPE and burns them. Hyperliquid has since added reserve-income funding to its buyback model, which raises the money available for purchases without itself showing how much was bought.

Three disclosures that will test these numbers What to watch Where it appears Timing Aave’s buyback budget and executed purchases Aave governance forum, TokenLogic dashboard As budget proposals are voted on JUP unlocks against Litterbox buys and burns Jupiter transparency page, Litterbox Trust wallet Alongside each quarterly staking reward round CAKE net supply change PancakeSwap monthly burn report The October report If Grayscale updates its chart, a narrower gap between the two yields would show more of AAVE’s and JUP’s earnings reaching holders, while a wider one would point to supply growth or retained spending absorbing more of them.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Research yield estimates are not guaranteed payouts or forecasts of token-price performance.

Author

Alexander Zdravkov is a market analyst and crypto journalist with interests in economics, broader financial markets and digital assets. His journey into crypto began more than four years ago, driven by a fascination with the rapid evolution of blockchain technology and the transformative potential of decentralized finance. He began analyzing market cycles and identifying emerging trends before they reach the mainstream. He holds a degree in International Relations - a background that helped shape his broader perspective on global economics, geopolitics, and the interconnected nature of modern financial markets. Whether covering the latest developments in the crypto sector or exploring broader macroeconomic themes, Alexander focuses on giving readers context rather than simply repeating headlines. During his career, he has authored more than 5,000 articles covering cryptocurrencies, traditional finance, and global market developments. His work spans everything from Bitcoin and altcoins to macroeconomic trends influencing risk assets worldwide.

Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX and chief investment officer of Maelstrom Fund, has exited his entire directional trading book.

On October 24, 2026, he confirmed the move on X, selling Ethereum (ETH), Ethena (ENA), Uniswap (UNI), and other altcoins worth roughly $22.28 million.

The exit signals a sharp defensive pivot amid rising macro and geopolitical uncertainty.

Hayes Closes the Book: What He Sold and Why In his own words on X, Arthur Hayes wrote: “I dumped it all. The Maelstrom directional book, took profits on $ETH, $ENA, $UNI and other shitcoins. I think we gotta go down to go up. It looks a bit dicey out there in macro and geopolitical land. Going to sit on the sidelines and wait for the all clear signal … Brrrrr.”

On-chain data from Lookonchain confirmed the scale of the exit. The sales included 6,400 ETH worth approximately $15.2 million.

Hayes also offloaded 14 million ENA (~$2.76M) and 323,000 UNI (~$2.24M). Smaller positions in ETHFI, AERO, PENDLE, and ZAMA were also closed.

The timing is striking. Just weeks ago, Hayes predicted Ethereum could reach $10K alongside massive ENA and ETHFI gains. That bullish stance is now paused. Hayes is not abandoning his long-term thesis, he is managing short-term risk.

The broader market context supports his caution. Multiple factors have been dragging crypto prices lower this week, including hawkish Fed signals, ETF outflows, and risk-off sentiment across tech and AI names. Geopolitical tensions have added another layer of uncertainty.

A Tactical Retreat, Not a Change of Heart This is not the first time Arthur Hayes has stepped back from altcoin exposure during uncertain periods.

He previously flagged crypto’s ‘no-trade zone’ and outlined his Bitcoin, Gold, and Hyperliquid outlook. That cautious streak is now showing up in his portfolio.

Earlier this year, a wallet linked to Hayes bought $5.4M in ETH following the US-Iran deal. That aggressive accumulation has now been reversed.

The pattern is consistent: Hayes cycles between deep alt exposure and full cash when macro conditions deteriorate.

His long-term structural view remains intact. Hayes has doubled down on Bitcoin reaching $1 million and laid out a potential timeline.

The current cash position is a tactical pause, not a permanent exit from crypto markets. For ENA specifically, Standard Chartered has separately forecast ENA reaching $2 by 2028.

The longer-term narrative around Ethena remains, even as Hayes steps aside in the near term. It is also worth noting that Hayes sold his entire Hyperliquid position earlier this year, sending HYPE down 4%.

That precedent shows that his sell announcements carry real market weight. ETH, ENA, and UNI could face near-term selling pressure as the market digests this exit.

Arthur Hayes said he is waiting for the ‘all clear signal’ before re-entering. Until then, Maelstrom sits in cash, and the market will be watching closely for his next move.

Hyperliquid Strategies Inc. (NASDAQ: PURR) has increased its stock repurchase program from $30 million to $100 million, expanding its authorization as shares of the HYPE treasury company have declined more than 30% from their October high.

The company said Friday that approximately $72 million remains available under the expanded program, while its board extended the authorization’s expiration date from December 5, 2026, to October 31, 2027.

Hyperliquid Strategies said the increase reflects its board’s confidence in the company’s long term capital strategy and provides additional flexibility to repurchase shares as part of its treasury management operations.

Repurchases may be conducted through open market purchases, privately negotiated transactions or other methods permitted under federal securities laws.

The company said the timing and size of purchases will depend on market conditions, share prices and regulatory requirements. The authorization does not guarantee that the remaining funds will be used, and the program may be suspended or discontinued.

PURR shares and HYPE underperform Bitcoin in October
The announcement comes as Hyperliquid Strategies and HYPE, the native token of the Hyperliquid blockchain, have experienced steeper declines than Bitcoin this month.

PURR shares traded near $8.80 on Friday, down approximately 33% from an October 5 high of $13.05, according to Yahoo Finance data.

HYPE has also declined more than 18% from its October high near $95, trading around $77 despite Bitcoin remaining relatively stable over the same period.

Bitcoin, meanwhile, has traded largely between $80,000 and $87,000 during October, declining approximately 6% from its monthly high near $87,000.

The comparison highlights the relative weakness of HYPE and PURR, with the company’s shares recording a considerably larger decline than both the underlying token and Bitcoin.

Hyperliquid Strategies operates as a digital asset treasury company focused on accumulating HYPE and providing investors with exposure to the Hyperliquid ecosystem.

Its strategy involves generating returns through HYPE staking, yield optimization and active participation in the network, rather than relying exclusively on changes in the token’s market price.

The company describes itself as the largest digital asset treasury vehicle focused on HYPE, targeting US and institutional investors seeking exposure to the blockchain’s growth.

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

In its market analysis published today, QCP argued that explaining Bitcoin’s weakness solely through developments specific to the crypto sector would be incomplete. The company stated that credit risk in institutions financing AI infrastructure with debt has spread to stocks and crypto assets.

The report highlighted the yields on CoreWeave bonds, which reached approximately 15 percent. According to QCP, this level indicates that investors are demanding a higher risk premium regarding financing costs and debt sustainability.

The company noted that CoreWeave stock fell 10 percent on October 22, indicating that concerns have spread to the broader technology sector.

QCP’s conclusion regarding Bitcoin is noteworthy: instead of appearing as an asset that moves independently of stocks in the current wave, BTC is following the general risk-aversion trend.

The report also addressed energy price pressures originating from the Middle East and financial risks in Europe. It noted that these factors simultaneously complicate growth and inflation expectations.

*This is not investment advice.

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

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a leading US federal banking regulator, finalized its rules implementing the GENIUS Act on October 21. This move marks the OCC as the first regulator to officially complete the framework for stablecoins since Congress passed the GENIUS Act in July 2025.

SMQKE highlights XRP benefitsCryptocurrency researcher SMQKE responded promptly to the OCC’s announcement, suggesting that the regulatory clarity provided by the GENIUS Act could deliver notable advantages for XRP. He openly stated that the new legislation will have positive implications for XRP’s role in digital assets and payments.

SMQKE referenced supporting research that examines Ripple’s RLUSD, a USD-backed stablecoin built on the XRP Ledger. RLUSD transactions incur a small fee denominated in XRP, which is permanently burned. The research asserts that consistent burning of XRP during transactions could drive upward price momentum by reducing the token’s overall supply.

As RLUSD adoption expands in cross-border payments and remittances, XRP could become a crucial bridge currency for providing liquidity, according to research highlighted by SMQKE.

The supporting documentation also implies that a well-defined, regulated framework provided by the GENIUS Act strengthens the credibility of RLUSD among financial institutions, further increasing overall adoption.

Mini dictionary: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is an independent bureau within the US Department of the Treasury responsible for chartering, regulating, and supervising all national banks and federal savings associations in the United States.

Institutional adoption and regulatory clarityThe research connects RLUSD’s growth potential to its compliance with strict reserve and audit requirements set by the GENIUS Act. Meeting these requirements could enhance RLUSD’s reputation among banks and payment providers, laying the groundwork for further adoption. Increased adoption would lead to more RLUSD transactions, increasing the frequency of associated XRP burns.

Though XRP is not a stablecoin, the GENIUS Act’s guidance regarding digital asset classification may also influence XRP’s regulatory status. The research points out that the Act could help XRP gain recognition as a utility token rather than a security, an issue that has played a central role in Ripple’s lengthy legal dispute with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

By offering regulatory clarity for stablecoin issuers, the GENIUS Act may also lower entry barriers for financial institutions considering stablecoin solutions. This environment could support joint adoption of both RLUSD and XRP in digital payment networks.

TokenTypeBurn MechanismRegulatory ImpactXRPUtility tokenFee burned per transactionPotential reclassification as utilityRLUSDStablecoin (USD-backed)Generates XRP burnsStronger institutional trust post-GENIUS ActSMQKE’s analysis drew notable attention within the XRP community. By labeling his work “Documented,” the researcher indicated a high degree of confidence in the supporting evidence. Community members emphasized the analysis as a foundation for renewed optimism about XRP’s future use cases.

The GENIUS Act gives Ripple and RLUSD a clear regulatory foundation, which could extend positive effects to XRP as well.

Ripple, the US-based technology company behind XRP, finds itself with improved regulatory clarity for its stablecoin product as a result of the OCC’s latest move. SMQKE argued that this environment creates a ripple effect, potentially benefiting broader digital asset adoption and XRP’s practical function in financial markets.

David Schwartz, Ripple's CTO emeritus and one of the original architects of the XRP Ledger (XRPL), has argued that the network's growing adoption could eventually translate into stronger demand and higher prices for its native cryptocurrency, XRP.

In a recent discussion on X, the prominent blockchain developer expressed skepticism about the possibility of the XRP Ledger becoming a major financial infrastructure platform without its native token benefiting from that success.

"I think a world where XRPL is highly successful in financial applications but XRP does not have high demand and value is very unlikely," Schwartz wrote.

HOT Stories

According to Schwartz, XRP possesses several unique advantages within the network that could help drive its long-term demand.

For starters, XRP is the only native, counterparty-free asset on the XRP Ledger, meaning that it does not depend on any third-party issuer.

Moreover, XRP is required to pay transaction fees and maintain account reserves on the network.

"All of those things can help drive value and demand," Schwartz explained.

His comments address a persistent debate within the XRP community about whether the growing adoption of the XRP Ledger necessarily translates into increased demand for XRP itself.

XRP could thrive even if Bitcoin dominatesSchwartz also outlined a hypothetical scenario in which Bitcoin becomes the dominant settlement asset, arguing that XRP could still benefit from the XRP Ledger's success.

"About the only way that could happen would be if we wound up in a world with one totally dominant settlement asset. That seems unlikely to me," he wrote, referring to a scenario in which XRPL succeeds without generating substantial demand for XRP.

He went on to explain that even widespread Bitcoin adoption would not necessarily eliminate XRP's role in facilitating transactions.

"For example, even if you imagine a world where nearly all settlement is done using bitcoin, if XRPL is successful, you will still probably have several versions of wrapped/bridged bitcoin on XRPL and XRP will capture value bridging them."

JPMorgan’s JPM Coin has recorded zero supply and zero transfers on Ethereum in a contract review by Sentora, days after the bank announced the deposit token’s arrival on the network.

Summary

Sentora reported zero JPM Coin supply and transfers on Ethereum, with one allowlisted address.
JPM Coin’s Base supply remained near $1 million across two addresses, according to Sentora.
JLTXX recorded $400 million in Ethereum redemptions as its Solana deployment reached $450 million.
Sentora found no live on-chain integration connecting JPM Coin with JPMorgan’s funds or DeFi protocols.

Sentora said its review found exactly one allowlisted address in the verified Ethereum contract, while the token’s Base deployment held roughly $1 million across two addresses, unchanged since November 2025.

The research firm’s findings cover the deposit token and separate movements in J.P. Morgan Asset Management’s tokenized liquidity fund. Its briefing reported $400 million in JLTXX redemptions on Ethereum across Oct. 21–22, alongside a rise in the fund’s Solana deployment from near zero to $450 million.

Sentora attributed those figures to its contract-level analysis. The timing does not establish that the same investors redeemed on Ethereum and subscribed on Solana, and the briefing did not identify transactions connecting the two movements.

JPM Coin’s Ethereum contract shows no supply in Sentora’s review
JPMorgan brought JPM Coin, which carries the ticker JPMD, to Ethereum for approved institutional clients on Oct. 19. As crypto.news previously reported, the bank’s Ethereum deposit token launch followed its November 2025 rollout on Base.

The deposit token represents U.S. dollar deposits held at JPMorgan. The launch coverage described institutional payments, securities settlement, and collateral payments as intended uses, with access restricted to approved customers despite the use of a public blockchain.

Sentora’s subsequent review reported no issued supply or transfers in the Ethereum contract it examined. Its Base findings described an unchanged supply balance, with holdings concentrated in two addresses.

An unchanged supply figure does not, by itself, establish whether transfers occurred during that period. Sentora’s briefing expressly reported zero transfers for Ethereum but did not provide an equivalent historical transfer count for Base.

The firm further said it had found no live on-chain integration between JPM Coin and the bank’s money market funds or decentralized finance protocols. Its statement concerned the integrations visible in its review, without documenting every potential institutional arrangement.

JLTXX records $400 million in Ethereum redemptions
Sentora reported that JLTXX’s Ethereum deployment recorded $400 million in redemptions across Oct. 21–22. Over the same period, its briefing placed the Solana deployment at $450 million after starting near zero.

The figures describe different measures across two networks. One is a redemption total, while the other is the reported size of a deployment after its growth. They do not establish an exact dollar-for-dollar migration.

J.P. Morgan Asset Management announced on Oct. 22 that JLTXX and its My OnChain Net Yield Fund, known as MONY, were available to qualified U.S. investors on Solana. Investors can access the two tokenized funds through Morgan Money, which handles subscriptions and redemptions and delivers token balances to blockchain addresses.

“Our clients operate across more than one network, and their liquidity should too,” said Paul Przybylski, the asset manager’s global head of product, digital and tokenized assets.

The company’s announcement identifies JLTXX as a U.S. registered government money market fund designed to support stablecoin issuers under the GENIUS Act. MONY is a separate private placement fund launched in December 2025. The release does not disclose assets held on Solana for either product.

JPMorgan’s fund documents retain investor and ownership controls
JPMorgan’s MONY FAQ lists a $1 million initial investment minimum and fees of 16 basis points. The document describes a British Virgin Islands private placement vehicle, with access subject to anti-money laundering and know-your-customer checks.

The FAQ says MONY invests in U.S. Treasury securities and Treasury-backed repurchase agreements, seeking a stable net asset value of $1 per share. Although its guidelines follow those applicable to government money market funds, the private vehicle is not subject to Rule 2a-7.

JPMorgan identifies SS&C as MONY’s transfer agent and says the official shareholder records remain off-chain. Investors need their own blockchain addresses to hold tokens, while peer-to-peer transfers are restricted to clients.

The Oct. 22 launch announcement warns that investments in the funds are not bank accounts and are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. JPMorgan says the funds seek to preserve a $1 share value but cannot guarantee it.

BNY completes tokenized Treasury financing with Citadel Securities
A separate institutional transaction involved BNY’s tokenized Treasury repo deal with Citadel Securities, announced on Oct. 13.

BNY said Citadel Securities purchased a two-year U.S. Treasury note through the bank on Tradeweb. A tokenized representation of the security settled within minutes on BNY’s private digital ledger before Citadel Securities pledged it as collateral in an overnight triparty repurchase agreement.

BNY supplied cash against the security and described the transaction as the first use of tokenized assets on a major triparty repo platform. Its announcement documented trade execution, settlement and financing within the same workflow.

The bank said it plans to introduce further digital cash and tokenized deposit services. BNY expects to expand operating hours for its traditional settlement platforms covering Fed-eligible securities and U.S. triparty transactions into European and Asian trading hours next year.

MyDoge lets users tip any X account in Dogecoin (DOGE) via @MyDogeTip. Tips need wallet approval, and MyDoge now sits under the new Dogecoin Labs.

Dogecoin ($DOGE) holders can send tips to any account on X through the MyDoge wallet, including recipients who have never used the app. The feature is run through the @MyDogeTip bot and relies on a request-and-confirm process rather than an instant transfer.

How MyDoge tipping on X works@MyDoge users start a tip by posting to @MyDogeTip. The post includes the command 'tip', the recipient's user handle, and an amount. The post alone does not move any funds.

Recipients do not need to be existing users. In the current V3 version, The DogeOS team also notes that The network fee is paid by the sender when the tip is confirmed.

For recipients who are not yet set up, the bot replies with upgrade instructions. In recent bot replies,

MyDoge now part of Dogecoin LabsThe tipping tool sits inside a newly reorganised Dogecoin ecosystem.

According to Benzinga, Tipping, long associated with Dogecoin's early internet culture, remains one of the simplest ways for new users to receive DOGE without setting up an exchange account first.

Sources

MyDogeTip on Twitter: user guide and non-custodial tipping explainedDogeOS blog: From Dogecoin Wallet to Dogecoin AppUnchained: Dogecoin Labs launches with MyDoge, DogeOS and a Dogecoin Foundation partnership

Arc’s stablecoin supply expanded sharply over the past week, increasing 33.51% to reach approximately $830.34 million, according to DefiLlama data. This surge stands in contrast to a slight contraction in the total global stablecoin supply, which declined by $1.25 billion during the same period to roughly $304.89 billion.

USDC Drives Arc’s GrowthAlmost all of the stablecoin supply on Arc comes from Circle’s USDC, which alone accounts for around $821 million. This figure represents nearly 98.9% of Arc’s total stablecoin float, marking a weekly gain of around 34% for USDC on this network. Small amounts of euro and sterling-pegged tokens are also present, but their contributions remain marginal.

Globally, Tether (USDT) continues to lead with about $182.51 billion in circulation, making up 59.86% of the total stablecoin market. USDC follows as the second-largest player with approximately $72.10 billion. Despite Arc’s robust growth, the overall market trend points to a net decrease in stablecoin supply, reflecting broader shifts in capital allocation and market sentiment.

Arc’s rapid expansion does not signal a broad recovery across all blockchains. Rather, the data show a significant migration of USDC liquidity specifically toward Arc, with other chains not experiencing similar inflows.

Arc’s Role and Technical PositioningArc serves as Circle’s open Layer-1 blockchain, promoted as an enterprise-focused, EVM-compatible network designed for stablecoin settlement. Circle introduced Arc with the intention of providing predictable transaction fees denominated in stablecoins like USDC, rather than volatile native tokens. The network targets institutional and enterprise use, setting itself apart from chains with larger or more generalized user bases.

The recent spike in Arc’s stablecoin balance largely reflects increased USDC activity. This pattern indicates participants are choosing to hold, transfer, or deploy USDC on Arc rather than on competing platforms. The week’s strong inflows do not alter the primary ranking of stablecoin assets between networks: Arc still trails behind blockchains such as Ethereum and Tron, which maintain multi-billion dollar stables reserves.

Liquidity Migration and Market DynamicsThe decline in global stablecoin supply, coupled with Arc’s outsized weekly gain, underlines a localized shift in liquidity rather than a market-wide rally. Factors such as redemption flows, portfolio rebalancing, or quieter inventory reductions may have contributed to the overall market contraction. Meanwhile, Arc’s segment saw an abrupt concentration of USDC, reinforcing the network’s role as a focused stablecoin hub.

Potential explanations for Arc’s stablecoin surge include fresh issuances and bridging of USDC, internal treasury reallocations by Circle, or other non-public capital moves. However, public float tables reveal only the outcome—more USDC now resides on Arc than seven days ago.

Tracking such liquidity movements remains essential for market participants and observers. Following both pricing trends and investor behavior can offer valuable insights for asset allocation and project development strategies.

In light of the increased emphasis on monitoring stablecoin deployment and asset flows, the meme token segment also serves as an example of rapid changes driven by internet trends. In this area, a low-barrier trade can evolve into substantial profit within days. Fomo App data highlight a remarkable case where the “Niu Lai” meme token turned a $99 initial investment into $370,000. For those navigating meme token volatility, observing not just price action but investor timing and token selection is vital. Fomo App consolidates token discovery, trading, social feeds, investor rankings, and trade alerts into one interface, helping users stay updated on both token moves and investor activity.

Arc float is up sharply. USDC dominates that balance. The broader market is slightly smaller than it was a week ago.

The fundamental stability question for pegged tokens remains unchanged. This week, however, attention has focused on which blockchain networks are holding the largest share of circulating stablecoins.

FedEx has joined the governing council of Hedera, a public distributed ledger network that positions itself as a neutral enterprise-grade trust layer. This development has drawn attention to HBAR, Hedera’s native token, especially as it trades around $0.08. Crypto commentator Rip The Bull has suggested that increasing participation from multinational corporations signals the network’s growing potential.

Major companies strengthen Hedera governanceFedEx, one of the world’s largest logistics companies, now operates a node on the Hedera network and holds an equal vote on the council alongside technology giants including Google, IBM, and Dell. The council system provides decentralized governance, with each member overseeing network decisions and performance. FedEx’s chief digital officer has referred to the platform as a “neutral enterprise grade trust layer.”

The Hedera governing council can include up to 39 organizations from diverse industries. Notable participants since 2019 include Boeing and, more recently, energy provider Repsol. While these institutions have a stake in shaping the network, the extent of their actual usage of Hedera’s services remains unclear.

FedEx’s position on Hedera’s council, joined by peers such as Google and IBM, highlights expanding enterprise involvement in decentralized networks, but does not confirm the scale of their network transactions.

Although such partnerships bring credibility, a seat on the council does not necessarily indicate the company’s day-to-day activity or financial transactions on the Hedera platform.

Banking infrastructure and institutional integrationSwiss digital asset infrastructure company Taurus has integrated Hedera’s technology into its services. Taurus now offers more than 40 regulated banks and financial institutions access to custody, token issuance, and smart contract features on the Hedera network.

Rip The Bull notes that Tauras’s clients can now hold and stake HBAR, but clarified that availability does not automatically mean active staking or new assets have been launched by these institutions using Hedera.

Mini dictionary: Taurus is a Swiss fintech company specializing in digital asset infrastructure, including custody, tokenization, and blockchain solutions for regulated banks and financial institutions.

The commentator referenced an April 2027 target for an on-chain delivery milestone tied to a United Kingdom wholesale-markets initiative. However, the source material does not specifically mention Hedera, suggesting this date is a broader industry benchmark rather than a confirmed Hedera rollout.

InstitutionRole on HederaConfirmed Network UsageFedExCouncil Member, Node OperatorUndisclosedGoogleCouncil MemberUndisclosedTaurusService IntegratorEnables access for 40+ banksRepsolCouncil MemberUndisclosedHBAR price analysis and future projectionsAccording to the latest YouTube analysis, HBAR’s price stands near $0.08. The commentary places $0.09 as the level required to reclaim a “200” indicator, referring to a technical metric relevant among traders. The host also identifies a weekly Fibonacci target near $0.80 and predicts a longer-term move to $1, though these outcomes are based solely on market analysis, not on any news from participating corporations.

For investors, the central question remains whether growing enterprise participation will translate to increased network use and rising demand for HBAR. While major institutions are joining the Hedera council and integrating its services, sustained token demand will depend on actual activity and adoption across these networks.

The difference between enterprise participation and network usage will determine whether Hedera’s governance partnerships shift into real demand for HBAR.

TLDR: Santiment counted 2,295 new UNI addresses in one day, the highest network-growth reading since November 2022, based on first-time interactions with UNI. Santiment pointed to new Uniswap v4 features, expanded liquidity routing and continued Unichain development as possible reasons for the increase, without naming a single driver. Santiment identified $7 as the key downside level, $7.50 as the first meaningful reclaim and $8 as a possible retest if support and network activity remain firm. If UNI loses $7 while new address creation fades, Santiment said the spike may reflect short-term excitement rather than sustained adoption; follow-through will clarify the trend. UNI wallet creation reached 2,295 addresses in one day, its highest network growth reading since November 2022, Santiment said. The increase puts network activity near levels last seen four years ago, while UNI remains close to $7. Santiment linked the rise in participation to three factors: 

Uniswap v4 features, liquidity routing and continued work on Unichain. The metric tracks new addresses that interact with UNI for the first time. It does not show how many people control those addresses or whether each will remain active. For traders, the wallet surge adds an adoption signal to the price levels in focus.

UNI Wallet Creation Reaches a Four-Year Network Growth Peak The UNI wallet creation count marks the strongest daily increase since November 2022. Santiment defines network growth by counting addresses that interact with UNI for the first time. The figure measures fresh on-chain participation, not a direct count of new customers. One person may control several wallets, while some addresses may see little activity after their first interaction. The data shows a jump in first-time address activity, but cannot confirm lasting adoption by itself.

Source: Santiment Santiment pointed to Uniswap v4 features, expanded liquidity routing and ongoing Unichain development as possible reasons for the increase. Together, these developments give users new ways to access the protocol and ecosystem. The post did not say which development contributed most, however. Nor does the one-day reading show that each new address arrived because of a specific product. The explanations remain plausible, while the increase in first-time addresses is the measured signal.

The next test is whether UNI wallet creation stays elevated. Santiment said readings above the recent baseline could strengthen the case for continued participation. If counts quickly fall back, the daily high may reflect short-term attention. Several days of elevated activity would offer stronger evidence that new addresses keep exploring UNI. Daily growth can fluctuate, so traders may seek follow-through before treating it as a lasting change.

UNI Price Levels Put $7 Support and $7.50 Reclaim in Focus UNI’s price structure centers on $7.00 and $7.50. Santiment called $7 the key downside level and $7.50 the first meaningful reclaim. These levels frame the immediate question: can buyers defend support, then recover initial resistance? Wallet growth adds context, but neither the network metric nor these levels guarantees a move. Confirmation depends on price response and continued activity.

If UNI holds above $7 while new address growth stays above its recent baseline, Santiment said a renewed test of $8 would be favored. That scenario pairs price stability with continuing participation. A reclaim of $7.50 is the first level to watch before any move toward $8. A push through $7.50 would show buyers recovering ground, but one brief move would not establish a breakout. Follow-through in both price and UNI wallet creation would strengthen the recovery case.

Source: TradingView If UNI falls below $7 as UNI wallet creation fades, Santiment said the spike could reflect short-term excitement rather than sustained adoption. If price slips under support while activity remains strong, the signals conflict. If activity fades but price holds, traders still need evidence that buyers will defend $7. Daily closes and new address counts may clarify which pattern is developing.

The two indicators answer different questions. Wallet counts show whether new addresses are beginning to interact with UNI, while price shows whether buyers are absorbing available supply. A rise in new addresses can coincide with a flat or falling token price when selling demand is stronger. 

Shiba Inu (SHIB), a popular meme-based cryptocurrency, continues to experience volatile market movements, with red numbers dominating most recent trading sessions. Despite these fluctuations, new exchange data indicates that sellers may still control the market in the near term.

Exchange Netflow on the RiseCryptoQuant, a blockchain analytics company, has reported that Shiba Inu’s exchange netflow posted a positive balance in the past 24 hours. The netflow surged to over 77 billion SHIB, reflecting an increase of nearly 4% during the period.

This spike indicates that a substantial volume of SHIB tokens has been transferred to exchanges, making them available for sale. As of October 23, the net balance reached 77,298,600,000 SHIB, suggesting that more tokens are flowing into trading platforms than being withdrawn for holding or long-term investment.

Such positive netflow trends are generally interpreted as signs of mounting selling pressure, since rising balances on exchanges can signal that holders are preparing to liquidate their assets.

CryptoQuant reported that the increase in SHIB exchange netflow means the number of tokens sent to exchanges for potential sale far exceeds those being removed, pointing to a possible continuation of bearish sentiment.

The exchange netflow metric is watched closely by traders, as it often correlates with shifts in market sentiment and can foreshadow short-term price movements.

Mini dictionary: Exchange netflow – This metric measures the difference between the amount of a cryptocurrency sent to exchanges (inflow) and the amount withdrawn from exchanges (outflow) over a set period. A positive netflow indicates more tokens moving into exchanges, often interpreted as increased selling pressure, while a negative netflow usually points to accumulation or holding trends.

MetricLast 24 hoursImplicationSHIB exchange netflow+77,298,600,000 SHIBIndicates potential selling pressurePrice movementLocal high near $0.0000051Short-term price recoveryMarket Response and Price ActionDespite increased selling pressure, Shiba Inu’s price reversed its short-term trend and moved into positive territory, reclaiming a local peak around $0.0000051. This shift brought some relief to investors, as a burst of buying temporarily offset earlier losses.

Market watchers noted that this brief upward movement could signal the potential for bullish traders to regain control if new demand materializes.

While Shiba Inu’s netflow data points to persistent selling, the recent price bounce has offered hope to participants who believe momentum could soon shift in favor of buyers.

The dynamic between exchange activity and price movement underscores the ongoing uncertainty in the meme coin segment, where rapid sentiment shifts frequently drive sudden volatility.

Public blockchains have always had an awkward relationship with privacy. Every transfer, balance and pending trade sits in the open, like a bank statement taped to a lamppost.

Aptos is trying to fix that without tearing down the lamppost. The network has rolled out three opt-in confidentiality layers on mainnet, covering who you are, how much you send and what you intend to do before your transaction lands.

The three features are Keyless Accounts, Confidential APT and an Encrypted Mempool. Together they were announced on October 13, 2026, and they mostly reach users through the Petra Wallet and related tools.

Three layers, three different problems
Layer one: identity. Keyless Accounts let people create a wallet using Google or Apple credentials. The point is that users can manage an identity on-chain without that identity being directly tied to their blockchain address.

Layer two: amounts. Confidential APT encrypts balances and transfer amounts using zero-knowledge proofs. Addresses stay visible, so the network can still verify that a transfer happened between two parties.

Layer three: intent. The Encrypted Mempool keeps transaction payloads encrypted until they are finalized into blocks. The goal is to blunt miner extractable value, better known as MEV.

The fine print
Privacy on Aptos does not come free. Encrypted transactions require a minimum gas price that is double the network’s base minimum.

There is also a compatibility gap. Certain account types, including Keyless Accounts, cannot currently sign encrypted transactions.

Every layer is opt-in. Nobody is forced into encryption, and the default experience on Aptos remains transparent.

How Aptos got here
The rollout follows a string of governance proposals. Confidential APT received approval in April 2026 and began drawing real usage afterward.

By mid-August 2026, approximately 15,000 APT had been moved into confidential pools.

Aptos itself launched in 2022. It is built on the Move programming language and uses Block-STM parallel execution, an approach designed to process many transactions at once rather than strictly one after another.

Petra, the wallet doing much of the distribution work here, already bundles a lot under one roof. It supports buying, swapping and sending assets, native APT staking, Ledger hardware wallet connections, Google and Apple social log-ins, and perpetual futures trading inside the wallet.

What this means
The most interesting design choice is what Aptos chose not to hide. Addresses remain visible under Confidential APT, which keeps a trail that auditors and compliance teams can still follow.

The use cases the network is targeting reflect that balance. Private payments and treasury operations are on the list, along with compliance pathways for participants who need them.

The doubled gas floor sets up a simple calculation for active traders. If the cost of being front-run regularly exceeds the extra fee, the encrypted route pays for itself.

The Keyless signing limitation is worth tracking. Until Keyless Accounts can sign encrypted transactions, the network’s friendliest entry point and its strongest trading protection live in separate lanes.

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

Hydration, a leading Polkadot DEX, has launched Zcash ($ZEC) swaps with DCA and limit orders, with ZEC lending and borrowing markets due as early as Monday.

Hydration (@Hydration_net), one of the main decentralized exchanges on Polkadot (@Polkadot), has launched swaps for Zcash (@Zcash) $ZEC within its ecosystem. The move brings a leading privacy token into Polkadot's DeFi stack.

Users can trade ZEC pairs through Hydration's liquidity layer. The venue supports dollar-cost averaging (DCA), limit-order execution and instant swaps for the token.

Lending and borrowing nextHydration is also scheduled to activate $ZEC lending and borrowing markets as early as Monday. Together with the swaps, the rollout gives ZEC holders a way to trade and put the asset to work on-chain without leaving the Polkadot ecosystem. The lending launch date is a target and could change.

Hydration, formerly known as HydraDX, is built around an Omnipool automated market maker that concentrates liquidity in a single pool. According to the same overview, it also runs a money market for supplying and borrowing assets and a decentralized, over-collateralized stablecoin called HOLLAR. Coin Bureau describes the Omnipool as an AMM design that concentrates liquidity into one shared trading layer rather than splitting it across many isolated pools.

Why Zcash matters for DeFiZcash is a privacy-focused asset, and access to it has been expanding across decentralized venues. In October, cross-chain protocol THORChain said native ZEC swaps were live, letting users swap ZEC for assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum and stablecoins without wrapped tokens or a centralized custodian. Hydration's launch adds another on-chain venue, this time within Polkadot.

Liquidity will be the key test. Newer ZEC markets elsewhere have started shallow, and THORChain's Zcash pool held just over $50,000 at launch, according to Chainwire. Depth on Hydration's ZEC pairs, and how quickly lending and borrowing markets attract users, will show how much demand exists for privacy assets in Polkadot DeFi.

For Hydration, the integration extends its all-in-one offering of trading, lending and stable-value products. For Zcash, it opens a new route to on-chain use beyond the venues where the token already trades.

SourcesPolkadot DeFi Dapps overview, Polkadot Ecosystem
Top Polkadot Projects in 2026, Coin Bureau
THORChain Launches Native Zcash Swaps, Chainwire

On October 23, 2026, ether.fi announced its acquisition of Zeal and opened an in-app route for Zeal users to move to its account and card product. Zeal says the deal covers selected assets, not user accounts, keys or funds, as its wallet winds down.

The move is optional. In its own announcement, Zeal said: “You choose what to move, and nothing moves automatically.” Its follow-up statement describes ether.fi as a self-custodial Visa option for users whose Zeal wallet and Gnosis Pay card services are ending.

Gnosis Pay’s migration guide says Zeal’s card services will be wound up by December 20, 2026. The guide also describes other ways to keep a Gnosis Pay account. Zeal users can choose those routes instead of moving to ether.fi.

What moves to ether.fi
The live migration page sets out four steps. Users start from the Zeal home screen and supply an email address. Entering the emailed six-digit code creates an ether.fi account. Zeal then moves the selected balance and assets into the new account. The final step is identity verification with ether.fi, followed by setting up the card.

Supported assets move across unchanged. Unsupported assets are converted during the move, incurring network fees and potentially losing some value in the conversion. The page invites users to bring their whole balance, but warns that conversion can reduce its value. It supplies neither a conversion quote nor an asset-by-asset migration table.

Opening the account creates a separate legal relationship with ether.fi. The migration page says ether.fi and Zeal remain separate companies. Users of the new account come under ether.fi’s terms and privacy policy. Eligibility, availability, fees, limits and restrictions apply; crypto assets can lose value and returns from earning products are not guaranteed. Identity verification is required before all features become available.

Keeping access to the existing Safe
Before Zeal users lose access to the old interface, Gnosis Pay’s guide tells them to add another wallet they control as a second owner of their Safe. It gives MetaMask and Rabby as examples. It says this lets them sign into the Gnosis Pay web app with that wallet and manage the account, including withdrawals. Without it, transactions still require signatures inside Zeal.

The same guide warns users taking its partner-migration route to withdraw assets from Zeal’s earn product back to their balance first. Assets left in earn will not be picked up. It specifically says Rebind’s migration tool moves assets on Gnosis and Base automatically. Those instructions describe the Gnosis Pay partner route; ether.fi’s migration page does not give equivalent detail about handling existing earn positions.

For EUR cardholders, Gnosis Pay recommends Rebind. Its guide says the account, IBAN and card carry over without new identity checks, with the existing card unchanged at that stage. Users choosing ether.fi’s published flow create a new account and complete verification before setting up the card.

Gnosis Pay describes its partner transition as a staged process. Some partner apps initially import the existing card and Safe setup. Later, when the partner programme goes live, users accept new terms and receive a partner card, with advance notice. Where the partner supports importing the existing card, users keep it for the initial move, with the replacement card coming later in the transition.

Spending balances or borrowing against them
Ether.fi’s Direct Pay documentation lists $USDC, $USDT, $EURC and $frxUSD as spendable stablecoins. It also lists Liquid USD, Liquid RWA, Liquid Reserve and Liquid EUR vault balances. Card payments can draw directly from those vault balances without a prior withdrawal.

The Set Spend Priority control selects which balance pays first. If that balance cannot cover a purchase, the card uses another balance that can. The documentation lists these assets for spending in the destination product. It does not list every asset supported by the Zeal migration.

Users who borrow also take on lending and collateral risk. According to ether.fi’s Borrow guide, eligible assets are supplied to a dedicated onchain lending market managed by ether.fi, earning variable rates determined by supply and demand. Eligible assets act as collateral automatically, and each has its own loan-to-value limit. Both the assets in the portfolio and their total value determine how much a user can borrow.

Loans must remain overcollateralized. Reaching the liquidation threshold shown in the app triggers the automatic liquidation of some collateral to restore the position. Limits on new borrowing cannot prevent market movements from pushing a position toward that threshold. Borrow can be switched off in settings once no borrowed amount remains outstanding, leaving the card operating in Direct Pay.

The terms of use separate protocol lending from the card issuer. They describe overcollateralized credit through decentralized borrowing protocols, with borrowing eligibility and limits set by protocol parameters. The issuer supplies the card used to access that credit; it does not originate the protocol loan.

Cashback has separate conditions
Ether.fi’s Zeal page advertises 3% cashback on eligible purchases up to the applicable monthly limit. The acquisition announcement advertises up to 4%. The migration page does not explain what would qualify a migrating user for the higher advertised rate.

The cashback programme terms exclude ATM withdrawals, peer-to-peer payments, tax payments, currency exchange services, gift cards and other cash equivalents. They also permit reversal of rewards after a refund, cancellation or chargeback, including by debiting the account, reducing future rewards or reducing the refund by the original reward’s dollar value.

The migration page has not published an asset-by-asset conversion schedule or explained how existing Zeal earn positions are treated in its own flow. Gnosis Pay’s stated December 20 deadline covers Zeal card services; ether.fi’s page gives no separate closing date for its migration offer.

The XRP token has moved closer to a breakout above $1.40 as Ripple convened figures from BlackRock and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for its Swell 2026 conference in New York. This high-profile event, which started on October 27, combines Ripple’s traditional keynote sessions with Apex, a specialized blockchain program for developers.

Institutional momentum and market impactThe presence of major global financial representatives at Swell 2026 coincided with a surge in regulated investments into the XRP ecosystem. Notably, clients of leading asset manager Franklin Templeton purchased $3.55 million worth of XRP ETF shares, contributing to a breakthrough from months-long price consolidation.

Recent trading activity has seen XRP stabilize within the $1.32 to $1.33 range, approaching a significant psychological resistance level. Market observers are watching for a breakout, with the token’s momentum supported by growing practical applications of the XRP Ledger (XRPL).

Recent inflows from institutional investors such as Franklin Templeton have helped push XRP out of its previous consolidation range, renewing attention on the token’s potential for a near-term breakout.

Market participants are now focusing on whether the XRPL, Ripple’s decentralized blockchain infrastructure, is positioned to become the primary standard for facilitating institutional capital flows. The participation of Wall Street leaders at the conference is expected to influence broader investor sentiment.

Strategic goals for BlackRock and the IMFBlackRock and the IMF are not seeking exposure to the XRP token itself. Their focus is on the integration of liquidity management and artificial intelligence solutions being developed through Ripple’s platform. These innovations could potentially form the backbone for advanced settlement hubs serving global finance.

Ripple’s XRPL, which supports multiple assets since its launch in 2012, features an auto-bridging mechanism. Developers see this as a potential foundation for a new era of payments automated by AI agents, further enhancing the network’s appeal to institutional participants.

Mini dictionary: Apex, a developer-focused blockchain summit that operates alongside Ripple’s Swell event, facilitates technical collaboration and showcases innovations within the XRP Ledger ecosystem.

This year’s conference also highlights Ripple’s stablecoin, RLUSD, and its scaling prospects within the On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) system. Binance, a leading global cryptocurrency exchange, is attracting retail attention through a campaign to distribute 600,000 XRP among RLUSD holders until mid-November. Meanwhile, institutional investors are evaluating the long-term fundamentals of these assets.

EntityRecent ActionFocusFranklin TempletonBought $3.55 million XRP ETFInstitutional investmentBlackRockAttending Swell 2026Liquidity integration, AI paymentsIMFAttending Swell 2026Settlement hub innovationBinance600,000 XRP campaignRetail engagement in RLUSDRipple’s cross-border payment solutionsRipple is using the Swell conference to present its strategic partnership with Arf, a Swiss fintech firm specializing in cross-border financial infrastructure. This alliance aims to accelerate global settlements using RLUSD, with settlement times ranging from one to five days and prospects for extending credit lines in the future.

By hosting Swell 2026 in New York alongside key players like BlackRock and the IMF, Ripple intends to showcase the readiness of its technologies for real-world financial applications. The company positions these developments as crucial steps that could help XRP overcome its longstanding price resistance.

Ripple’s expansion into cross-border settlements and stablecoin scaling is drawing renewed interest from both retail and institutional investors, raising expectations for XRP’s performance in global markets.

Bitcoin is navigating a challenging economic environment as Brent crude oil maintains levels above $100 per barrel, raising concerns about persistent inflation and the availability of fresh liquidity in global markets. CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost highlighted that strong oil prices historically coincide with slower Bitcoin price momentum, though he emphasized that this pattern does not represent a confirmed causation.

Brent crude’s influence on Bitcoin and market liquidityAccording to Darkfost, ongoing geopolitical tensions in the Gulf region and intensified Ukrainian operations targeting Russian refineries have pushed energy prices higher. Elevated fuel costs can impact a broad range of industries, including manufacturing, transportation and services, contributing to rising prices across the economy.

“Over the long term, periods when Brent oil trends strongly above its annual average have typically seen Bitcoin’s upward momentum slow, though distinct causal links remain unproven,” stated Darkfost of CryptoQuant.

Brent crude recently hovered near $104, compared to an average range of $60 to $70 earlier in 2026. The commodity’s 365-day moving average is now rising following an extended downtrend.

Available data since 2014 shows that when Brent trades significantly above its yearly average, Bitcoin often underperforms. Several such episodes—such as in 2018, parts of 2021 and 2022, and periods throughout 2026—demonstrate this market relationship. However, not every increase in oil prices led to a drop in Bitcoin, underscoring the complex interplay between the two markets.

Darkfost argued that broader economic conditions, rather than oil prices alone, ultimately drive investor behavior. In an inflationary environment, access to capital and appetite for higher-risk assets like cryptocurrencies can diminish. Persistently high energy prices further complicate decisions for the Federal Reserve, as officials navigate balancing inflation risks with the goal of supporting economic growth.

If inflation does not subside, the Federal Reserve may be less inclined to loosen monetary policy, creating a less favorable backdrop for new investment in digital assets. Sustained high borrowing costs and elevated yields could make allocating capital to Bitcoin less attractive for some investors.

Nevertheless, the analyst noted that Bitcoin responded positively during brief intervals of reduced macroeconomic strain, as seen in July. Oil prices subsequently rebounded, but Darkfost did not rule out the potential for further gains, cautioning instead that persistent high energy costs may limit the flow of new liquidity into cryptocurrencies.

Mini dictionary: CryptoQuant is an on-chain analytics platform specializing in blockchain data and market intelligence for digital assets.

Whale activity: over $770 million in BTC withdrawnWhile macroeconomic pressure persists, large Bitcoin holders are increasingly moving considerable sums of cryptocurrency. Blockchain analytics provider Lookonchain reported that since October 1, forty newly-created wallets have withdrawn a combined 9,458 BTC—valued at approximately $771.5 million—through Wintermute, a leading digital asset trading firm known for providing market liquidity and institutional solutions.

Mini dictionary: Wintermute is a prominent global algorithmic trading firm providing liquidity and facilitating large-scale transactions in the digital asset markets.

These large-scale withdrawals suggest some whales are accumulating Bitcoin even amid sluggish overall momentum. However, transfers from exchanges or trading firms to private wallets do not confirm whether these represent new purchases, nor do they reveal the identities of the wallet holders. It also remains unclear if the recipients are distinct institutional investors or addresses controlled by a single entity.

Lookonchain’s observation highlights ongoing interest in Bitcoin by large market participants, but the data cannot confirm broader buying activity across the market. Moving coins between wallets is not equivalent to net buying pressure, and cannot guarantee immediate impact on price direction.

MetricValueBTC Withdrawn9,458 BTCUSD Value$771.5 millionNumber of wallets40PeriodSince October 1Main partyWintermuteEven as large withdrawals signal ongoing accumulation by whales, these movements alone do not demonstrate a market-wide trend toward new investments or establish a firm timeline for Bitcoin’s potential recovery.

Both the oil market analysis and whale activity measure distinct aspects of the current environment: energy prices frame the macroeconomic backdrop and potential liquidity constraints, while wallet movements illustrate how major Bitcoin holders position themselves under these conditions.

For now, no clear correlation guarantees either immediate price gains or losses for Bitcoin. Darkfost pointed to Brent’s performance above its annual average as the metric to monitor—should oil recede below $100 and fall under its yearly benchmark, pressure on Bitcoin could ease and create room for new market momentum.

Parker Lewis, author of “Gradually, Then Suddenly,” has argued that Bitcoin is poised to eventually settle all global payments. In a recent interview, Lewis pointed to the increasing burdens on the credit system, citing $107 trillion in global debt, and outlined how these factors could accelerate Bitcoin adoption for payment settlement.

Bank Failures and the Payment RevolutionLewis explained that major bank closures in 2023 convinced him the payments infrastructure is Bitcoin’s most vital role, rather than custody or reserve functions. He noted that the banking instability showcased vulnerabilities in traditional finance and made decentralized alternatives more attractive to individuals and businesses alike.

Discussing merchant adoption, Lewis highlighted that businesses can bypass traditional card networks by accepting Bitcoin directly. He emphasized these advantages by stating that merchants avoid the typical 3% card processing fees and eliminate risks related to chargebacks.

Parker Lewis described the shift in payments as essential, stating that merchant adoption of Bitcoin means, “Fewer fees, no chargebacks, and a more direct payment system.”

This focus on direct payments, according to Lewis, could drive Bitcoin’s real-world usage beyond its perception as just an asset or reserve currency.

Debt, Macro Strain, and Dollar RelevanceLewis also addressed the strain in the global credit system, citing over $107 trillion in worldwide debt—up starkly from $52 trillion in 2007. He said escalating interest rates, with mortgages above 7% and corporate refinancing costs at nearly 10%, signal deeper systemic stress.

He added that traditional tools of the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury are losing efficacy, leaving large-scale money creation as one of the only remaining responses to rising financial pressures.

According to Lewis, in such an environment, the dollar price of Bitcoin gradually becomes irrelevant as the system transitions to more direct digital settlements and away from depending on fiat currency denominations.

He claimed that “over time, as more payments are made through Bitcoin, the importance of its price in dollars will diminish.”

Lewis further critiqued the alignment issues between Bitcoin treasury companies and their investors, asserting that simply holding Bitcoin does not automatically drive long-term value or innovation.

Payments Infrastructure and Technical DebatesDebating the technical side, Lewis argued that Bitcoin’s real innovation comes through closing the value transfer loop and using payment networks, such as the Lightning Network, to provide scalable, instant settlements.

He also discussed the constraints of on-chain transaction capacity versus off-chain solutions like Lightning, suggesting that the payments architecture will need to evolve dramatically to reach the projected scale.

Mini dictionary: Lightning Network, a second-layer payment protocol for Bitcoin, enables faster and lower-cost transactions by creating off-chain channels that eventually settle on the main blockchain. It is seen as a critical tool for scaling Bitcoin to handle global payment volumes.

Lewis’s viewpoint has sparked further debate about Bitcoin’s long-term utility and the future of global payment settlements.