C

CryptoSlate - News

Get latest news from CryptoSlate.

Coin Metrics revises 19 months of ETF wallet data but by how much?

<p>Coin Metrics corrected more than 19 months of Bitcoin ETF-related on-chain data, leaving users of its identified-wallet series to reassess any analysis built on the affected history.</p> <p>The <a href="https://status.coinmetrics.io/">Sept. 22 status notice</a> says the correction covers Bitcoin data from Feb. 7, 2025 through Sept. 17, 2026. Coin Metrics listed 35 affected daily series and 25 hourly series, including ETF deposits, withdrawals, transfer counts and transactions. The daily list also included net-flow and supply measures.</p> <div class="cs-article-embed"> <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-etfs-just-lost-463-million-as-the-fed-puts-btcs-75000-breakout-at-risk/" class="cs-article-embed__link"> <div class="cs-article-embed__body"> <span class="cs-article-embed__related-reading">Related Reading</span> <h3 class="cs-article-embed__title">Bitcoin ETFs just lost $463 million as the Fed puts BTC at risk of losing $75,000</h3> </div> <span class="cs-article-embed__arrow" aria-hidden="true"> <i class="fa-light fa-arrow-up-right"></i> </span> </a> </div> <p>These are provider-derived observations of activity involving blockchain addresses Coin Metrics identifies as ETF-owned, rather than official ETF share-creation, redemption or fund-accounting records.</p> <p>The notice does not state what caused the recalculation. Moreover, it gives no before-and-after values, aggregate difference or percentage change; does not say whether the revisions generally raised or lowered the figures; and does not identify the largest adjustment or any affected research.</p> <p><a href="https://cryptoslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/exec-0af666ac-a42a-41a6-b6fd-9d7ba448e854.png" target="_blank" rel="noopener"></a></p> <h2>What the correction can change</h2> <p>Coin Metrics' <a href="https://gitbook-docs.coinmetrics.io/network-data/network-data-overview/exchange-traded-fund/deposits">deposit methodology</a> defines an ETF deposit as assets sent during an interval to an address the company identifies as ETF-owned. Dollar-denominated deposit flows are calculated from native-unit flows using its PriceUSD metric.</p> <p>Its <a href="https://gitbook-docs.coinmetrics.io/network-data/network-data-overview/exchange-traded-fund/withdrawals">withdrawal methodology</a> counts assets leaving the control of identified ETF addresses. For Bitcoin withdrawals, Coin Metrics excludes the effect of change outputs, so coins returned to the same fund cluster are not counted as a separate inflow.</p> <p>Coverage is another constraint. Coin Metrics says its <a href="https://gitbook-docs.coinmetrics.io/network-data/network-data-overview/exchange-traded-fund/transaction-count">ETF transaction-count metric</a> includes only ETFs and addresses it has identified, making that specific metric a minimum potential value. The daily correction list also reaches its <a href="https://gitbook-docs.coinmetrics.io/network-data/network-data-overview/exchange-traded-fund/exchange-traded-fund-supply">ETF supply series</a>.</p> <div class="cs-article-embed"> <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-etf-outflows-explained-19b-aum-drop-without-selling/" class="cs-article-embed__link"> <div class="cs-article-embed__body"> <span class="cs-article-embed__related-reading">Related Reading</span> <h3 class="cs-article-embed__title">$19B could “vanish” from Bitcoin ETFs without a single Bitcoin being sold</h3> </div> <span class="cs-article-embed__arrow" aria-hidden="true"> <i class="fa-light fa-arrow-up-right"></i> </span> </a> </div> <p>Wallet movements cannot be treated as a one-to-one proxy for authorized-participant creations or redemptions. Coin Metrics measures attributed blockchain activity, while the regulated fund process concerns orders for ETF shares, including the in-kind mechanism permitted under the <a href="https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025-101-sec-permits-kind-creations-redemptions-crypto-etps">SEC's July 2025 approval</a>. The Sept. 22 notice describes a correction to Coin Metrics Network Data, not a revision to issuer records.</p> <p>The practical impact is therefore limited to work that used the affected Coin Metrics series. Anyone who stored those daily or hourly values, or used them in models, charts or research covering the corrected interval, may need to backfill the history and rerun that work. The notice does not show that unrelated ETF analysis changed.</p> <div class="cs-article-embed"> <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/the-63-billion-revolving-door-carrying-the-entire-us-bitcoin-etf-market/" class="cs-article-embed__link"> <div class="cs-article-embed__body"> <span class="cs-article-embed__related-reading">Related Reading</span> <h3 class="cs-article-embed__title">The $63 billion revolving door carrying the entire US Bitcoin ETF market</h3> </div> <span class="cs-article-embed__arrow" aria-hidden="true"> <i class="fa-light fa-arrow-up-right"></i> </span> </a> </div> <p>Until Coin Metrics publishes deltas or a fuller explanation, the responsible conclusion remains narrow: the provider changed a broad slice of its ETF-wallet picture, but has not shown the public how much that picture moved.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/coin-metrics-corrected-19-months-of-bitcoin-etf-wallet-data-without-saying-how-much-changed-publicly/">Coin Metrics revises 19 months of ETF wallet data but by how much?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/">CryptoSlate</a>.</p>

2026/9/23
阅读更多

Bitcoin ETFs just erased a $5.7 billion hole, but profit-taking is swallowing the new demand

<p><a href="https://cryptoslate.com/coins/bitcoin/">Bitcoin</a> exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have erased their 2026 flow deficit after a sharp buying revival, even as the top crypto struggles to hold its latest gains.</p> <p><a href="https://sosovalue.com/assets/etf/us-btc-spot">Data</a> from SoSoValue shows that <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-etfs-see-record-1-2-billion-inflow-with-blackrocks-ibit-leading-the-charge/">the US-listed funds</a> have attracted more than $1.7 billion in fresh capital this week, with the products <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-etfs-just-absorbed-11500-btc-in-their-biggest-buying-day-in-nearly-two-years/">drawing $999 million on Sept. 21</a> and $715 million on Sept. 22.</p> <p>At the current pace, the funds are positioned to surpass their strongest inflow week of the year, when they drew about $1.92 billion during the week ended Aug. 21.</p> <p><a href="https://cryptoslate.com/companies/blackrock/">BlackRock</a> has captured a disproportionate share of the latest demand, with its iShares Bitcoin Trust (<a href="https://cryptoslate.com/products/ishares-bitcoin-trust/">IBIT</a>) attracting roughly $1.02 billion over four trading sessions, according to Arkham Intelligence.</p> <h2>ETF buying repairs a $5.7 billion hole</h2> <p>The latest inflows cap a sharp reversal for a market that had accumulated a $5.69 billion year-to-date deficit by July 13.</p> <p>Askthetape <a href="https://askthetape.com/m/etf-flows/#w=1Y">data</a> show roughly $6.04 billion has flowed back into the products since that trough, pushing the annual tally to about $349 million in net inflows. About $3.17 billion of the recovery came during the past 30 days.</p> <p>Bloomberg Intelligence ETF analyst <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/people/eric-balchunas/">Eric Balchunas</a> said the renewed demand began gathering pace in August after Treasury Secretary <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/people/scott-bessent/">Scott Bessent</a> signaled increased <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-price-hits-69500-as-over-400m-of-shorts-liquidated-because-us-doubles-treasury-debt-buybacks-to-crush-long-term-yields/">purchases of longer-dated government bonds,</a> a development some market participants interpreted as evidence of mounting pressure in long-duration debt markets.</p> <p>Bitcoin has risen about 35% since then, climbing from roughly $64,100 to above $85,000, while the ETFs absorbed about $4.6 billion over the same period, Balchunas said.</p> <p>The rebound has also repaired losses for investors who spent parts of 2026 holding ETF positions below their purchase price. The <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-hits-86000-putting-etf-investors-back-in-profit-after-86-billion-wipeout/">average cost basis of Bitcoin held through the funds</a> is estimated near $82,000, leaving the cohort back in unrealized profit with BTC trading above $85,000.</p> <p>That marks a clear shift from July, when persistent redemptions were adding pressure to an already weak market. ETF investors are now increasing exposure after a roughly one-third rally, with fresh creations arriving as Bitcoin trades near eight-month highs.</p> <h2>Profit-taking absorbs the ETF bid as Bitcoin slips below $85,000</h2> <p>That stronger demand helped push Bitcoin as high as $87,265 over the past 24 hours, but the rally has since lost momentum. Data from <em>CryptoSlate</em> shows the cryptocurrency traded at $84,589 as of press time as <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/massive-etf-capital-exits-threaten-bitcoins-fragile-86000-price-surge/">investors increasingly took profits</a> in the advance.</p> <p>CryptoQuant <a href="https://x.com/JA_Maartun/status/2102352714974056930">data</a> show short-term holders sent about 47,600 BTC held at a profit to exchanges as <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-just-broke-85000-but-the-rally-is-being-powered-by-traders-forced-to-buy/">Bitcoin approached $88,000,</a> one of the largest spikes in the series. At prices near $85,000, the coins were worth more than $4 billion, highlighting the scale of potential supply moving toward trading venues as ETF demand accelerated.</p> <p>Exchange deposits do not mean every transferred coin was sold. Still, the surge shows that profitable short-term holders became considerably more active around the local high.</p> <p>That supply helps explain why more than $1.7 billion of ETF inflows this week has not produced an uninterrupted advance. Fresh institutional money continues to enter through the funds, while investors who accumulated Bitcoin at lower prices are using the rebound to lock in gains.</p> <p>However, <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/companies/santiment/">Santiment</a> warned that strong ETF demand could itself become a source of caution.</p> <p>The analytics firm <a href="https://x.com/SantimentData/status/2102464498850279755">said</a> unusually large ETF inflows have repeatedly clustered around local market turning points, as investors tend to chase exposure after Bitcoin has already made a substantial move. The latest surge fits that pattern, with <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoins-realized-cap-contracts-for-the-first-time-in-a-month-as-btc-price-faces-a-71300-risk/">ETF demand</a> reaching an extreme after Bitcoin climbed about 35% over the past month.</p> <p>Santiment stressed that such inflows do not guarantee an immediate reversal. Strong buying can continue to carry prices higher, but past episodes suggest exceptionally large creations can coincide with rising euphoria and leave the market more vulnerable once marginal demand begins to fade.</p> <p>That risk is now developing alongside heavier profit-taking. Bitcoin’s rally has returned the average ETF investor to unrealized profit while also giving short-term holders acquired at lower prices an opportunity to distribute coins into strength.</p> <p>Continued ETF creations would give the market more capacity to absorb that supply. A slowdown in fund demand while short-term-holder exchange deposits remain elevated would leave Bitcoin increasingly reliant on other spot buyers to sustain a rally that has already brought a large share of recent investors back into profit.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-etfs-just-erased-a-5-7-billion-hole-but-profit-taking-is-swallowing-the-new-demand/">Bitcoin ETFs just erased a $5.7 billion hole, but profit-taking is swallowing the new demand</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/">CryptoSlate</a>.</p>

2026/9/23
阅读更多

Solana moves Alpenglow into testnet as SOL nears January highs

<p><a href="https://cryptoslate.com/blockchain/solana/">Solana</a> has begun rolling out Alpenglow on testnet, moving its planned blockchain consensus overhaul into a public testing environment.</p> <p>The upgrade targets finality of about 150 milliseconds, down from roughly 12.8 seconds under TowerBFT, the system Solana validators currently use to agree on blocks. <a href="https://solana.com/upgrades/alpenglow">Alpenglow</a> replaces that consensus layer while leaving the Solana Virtual Machine, transactions, programs, and fees unchanged.</p> <p>Its first phase introduces Votor, which replaces the vote transactions validators currently put onchain with votes sent directly between validators. Those votes are combined into certificates that can finalize a block within one or two voting rounds, cutting the wait for an irreversible transaction by about 99%.</p> <p>Anza, the developer behind Solana’s Agave validator software, <a href="https://x.com/anza_xyz/status/2102402573479084114">said</a> that testnet was entering the rollout process, ahead of deployments on devnet and eventually mainnet-beta. The migration builds on months of preparation across validators and infrastructure providers, which must adjust systems that stream blocks, track votes, or rely on Solana’s existing commitment structure.</p> <p></p> <p>Alpenglow will later add Rotor, a replacement for Turbine, Solana’s system for distributing block data across the network. Rotor is scheduled separately, leaving Votor and faster finality as the rollout's immediate focus.</p> <p>The consensus overhaul follows another <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/solana-triples-transaction-size-as-major-upgrades-meet-record-network-activity/">wave of performance upgrades</a>. Solana activated Transaction V1 this month, lifting maximum transaction size to 4,096 bytes from 1,232, while its slot-time roadmap has progressively cut the target from <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/solanas-250ms-slots-turn-validator-coordination-into-the-networks-next-security-test/">400 milliseconds toward 200 milliseconds</a>.</p> <h2>SOL approaches January levels as network activity expands</h2> <p>The technical push is arriving alongside a recovery in SOL and expanding activity across several parts of the ecosystem.</p> <p>SOL traded around $117 as of press time after reaching almost $120 this week, putting the token around its strongest level since late January. It has gained roughly 25% over the past month, <em>CryptoSlate's</em> data shows.</p> <p>Solana has also been drawing more tokenized traditional assets. Real-world assets on the network <a href="https://x.com/solana/status/2102681127563784573">reached</a> about $4.6 billion in early September, extending a climb that took the sector through $4 billion for the first time in August.</p> <p>Trading activity has accelerated alongside it. Solana decentralized exchanges recorded about 208 million individual spot trades in the week ending Sept. 13, compared with roughly 190 million on the New York Stock Exchange, according to <a href="https://x.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2102403708780683315">data</a> cited by the Kobeissi Letter. The gap with Nasdaq narrowed to about 47 million trades. Jupiter accounted for more than 80 million trades during September, up 38% from the previous month.</p> <p>That growth has strengthened an increasingly aggressive investment case from some of Solana’s longtime backers. <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/multicoin-exits-the-1-65-billion-solana-treasury-company-it-helped-launch-eight-months-ago/">Multicoin Capital</a> co-founder Kyle Samani reportedly <a href="https://x.com/solana_daily/status/2102608901040406815">said</a> that he expects SOL’s market capitalization to surpass Ethereum's during the current market cycle, arguing that developers are increasingly choosing Solana and pointing to its recent <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/solana-flips-ethereum-in-fees-while-eth-holds-the-burn-lead/">lead over Ethereum in network fees</a>.</p> <p>The gap remains substantial: Samani’s comparison put Solana near $58 billion against about $293 billion for ETH.</p> <p>For Solana, the more immediate test now moves back to the network itself. Testnet gives validators and infrastructure providers the first broad environment to run Alpenglow before the consensus system advances to devnet and, ultimately, the mainnet that will carry Solana’s growing trading and tokenized-asset economy.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/solana-moves-alpenglow-into-testnet-as-sol-nears-january-highs/">Solana moves Alpenglow into testnet as SOL nears January highs</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/">CryptoSlate</a>.</p>

2026/9/23
阅读更多

Altcoin demand meets $18B threat as flows move into RWA perps as just 19% of traders keep alts

<p>In the markets Talos tracked, daily volume in RWA perpetual futures tied to equities, commodities and indices rose from less than $1 billion in January to $18.8 billion during Sept. 3-9. That represented 18.5% of futures volume across those venues.</p> <p><a href="https://cryptoslate.com/crypto-exchanges/">Crypto exchanges</a> built their derivatives businesses around perpetual futures, and the same contract structure now wraps exposure to oil, gold, stocks, indices, and pre-IPO companies.</p> <p><a href="https://www.talos.com/insights/state-of-the-market-september-03-september-09-2026">The Talos data</a> show that crypto-perpetual volume declined over the comparison period while total futures activity in its sample remained roughly flat, with traditional-asset contracts filling the volume gap.</p> <p>The changing product mix creates a real competitive threat for altcoins. Traders no longer need a new token to find leverage, volatility, or a market that stays open around the clock.</p> <p>Wallet behavior on Hyperliquid points to mostly separate customer groups, with a smaller group trading across both markets.</p> <h2>Hyperliquid’s traders mostly stay in their lanes</h2> <p>Talos found that traditional asset perps represented 28% of futures volume on Hyperliquid and 24.8% on <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/companies/binance/">Binance</a> in its sample. Oil led the weekly increase as Brent crossed $100, showing how crypto venues can capture trading around an event unrelated to cryptocurrency.</p> <p>CoinDesk Research reported that centralized-exchange volume rose 12.7% month over month to $4.29 trillion in August. Spot increased 18.7%, derivatives rose 11.3%, and traditional-asset perpetual volume increased 2.37% to $602 billion.</p> <p>Both traditional-asset and crypto activity expanded during that month. Substitution could still occur within a specific venue or account, while the aggregate figures show that the two categories can also grow together.</p> <div class="cs-article-embed"> <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/your-bitcoin-trade-can-now-get-liquidated-because-a-stock-crashed/" class="cs-article-embed__link"> <div class="cs-article-embed__body"> <span class="cs-article-embed__related-reading">Related Reading</span> <h3 class="cs-article-embed__title">Your Bitcoin trade can now get liquidated because a stock crashed</h3> </div> <span class="cs-article-embed__arrow" aria-hidden="true"> <i class="fa-light fa-arrow-up-right"></i> </span> </a> </div> <p>Hyperliquid's HIP-3 framework lets outside builders deploy markets, including contracts linked to stocks and commodities. DefiLlama divided new wallets into RWA-first and “Other-first” cohorts based on the market of their first Hyperliquid trade.</p> <p>From Jan. 1 through June 30, <a href="https://defillama.com/research/spotlight/hyperliquid-and-the-rwa-onboarding-question-what-the-data-shows">DefiLlama classified 169,514 new wallets as RWA-first</a>. They represented 31.7% of new wallets and generated $111.6 billion (31.5%) of the <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/markets/">trading volume</a> produced by new users.</p> <p>The economics of this acquisition cohort differed sharply from its share of activity: RWA-first wallets generated only 8.3% of the main trading fees paid by new users in the study.</p> <p>RWA-first wallets kept 83.6% of their volume in RWA markets, while Other-first wallets, whose first trade was in crypto or another non-RWA market, sent 22.8% of their volume into RWA markets and produced roughly 40% of RWA-market volume.</p> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Group</th> <th>Trading behavior</th> <th>Reader takeaway</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>RWA-first wallets</td> <td>31.7% of new wallets, 31.5% of new-user volume</td> <td>Traditional-asset markets attracted a substantial new cohort, though its capital source remains unknown</td> </tr> <tr> <td>RWA-first wallets</td> <td>83.6% of volume stayed in RWA markets</td> <td>Most traded primarily in the product category they entered through</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Other-first wallets</td> <td>Roughly 40% of RWA-market volume</td> <td>Existing crypto-platform users crossed into traditional assets, with changes to their crypto positions unmeasured</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>A <a href="https://defillama.com/research/spotlight/hyperliquid-and-the-rwa-retention-question-what-the-data-shows">DefiLlama follow-up</a> found that 80.9% of RWA-first wallets never crossed into the other market, while 82% of Other-first wallets never crossed into RWA markets.</p> <p>Cross-market activity increased among the most frequent traders who did cross. The user base divides into three broad groups: RWA-first wallets that mostly stay with those products, crypto-first wallets that mostly stay with crypto, and a smaller high-frequency core that treats both as trading opportunities.</p> <h2>Altcoins face a tougher contest for attention</h2> <p><a href="https://cryptorank.io/insights/research/market-narratives-through-the-lens-of-cex-listings">CryptoRank counted 351 new listings</a> across 10 major centralized exchanges in the second quarter, the fewest since the third quarter of 2023. Tokenized assets accounted for 42 additions, while categories associated with the previous speculative cycle lost momentum.</p> <p><a href="https://cryptoslate.com/companies/gate/">Gate</a> was responsible for 573 removals, nearly 60% of delistings in the first half. <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/companies/mexc/">MEXC</a> rarely reported delistings and was effectively excluded from that part of the analysis.</p> <p>Inside CryptoRank's sample, exchange priorities changed as one venue's cleanup dominated removals and reporting gaps limited the cross-exchange picture. RWA trading cannot be blamed for those delistings.</p> <p>Binance's tokenized-stock figures also show overlap but do not reveal portfolio rotation. Binance Research reported that 58.5% of early bStocks users also used perpetuals, direct equities, or both.</p> <p>For altcoin holders, the practical risk is competition at the margin. Market makers have finite balance sheets, exchanges have limited promotional capacity, and traders have limited attention. Familiar stocks and commodities now compete with them inside the same apps and collateral systems.</p> <p>Altcoins have a new competitor for speculative demand. Another example is the HIP-3, which lets outside builders deploy perpetual markets.</p> <p><a href="https://hyperliquid.gitbook.io/hyperliquid-docs/trading/fees">Hyperliquid's fee documentation</a> says deployers may retain up to 50% of trading fees generated by their assets. Trading fees directed to the protocol's Assistance Fund are converted automatically into HYPE, Hyperliquid's native token, and the acquired HYPE is burned.</p> <p>Only a portion of builder-market activity reaches HYPE-related mechanisms. Assistance Fund burns can reduce token supply, while market price still depends on demand, liquidity and the broader market.</p> <h2>Activity and retained economics can move apart</h2> <p>The divergence appeared in first-half figures calculated by <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/companies/21shares/">21Shares</a>, which estimated that Hyperliquid's gross fees rose from $320 million in the first half of 2025 to <a href="https://www.21shares.com/de-ch/insights/hyperliquid-fees-revenue-h1-2026">$419.3 million in the first half of 2026</a>. Its measure of core protocol revenue, the fee share flowing back to the platform treasury, fell from $317.5 million to $305.3 million.</p> <p>Gross fees and core revenue moved in opposite directions as builder-deployed markets captured a larger share of activity.</p> <p>Crypto perps led the next monthly expansion, as Hyperliquid's total open interest rose from $6.6 billion to $8.8 billion in September. Meanwhile, HIP-3's share declined from 34% to 25%.</p> <p>Traditional asset trading can fill a crypto-volume gap in one period and grow alongside crypto in another. It can bring in new wallets, give existing users more products, and create fee streams divided among the protocol, builders, and token-linked mechanisms, making exchanges less dependent on crypto's cycles.</p> <p>For altcoins, the outcome is more ambiguous. Crypto's trading rails can thrive even when demand for the assets that built them grows more slowly.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/altcoin-demand-faces-18b-threat-as-flows-move-into-rwa-perps-while-only-19-of-traders-keep-altcoins/">Altcoin demand meets $18B threat as flows move into RWA perps as just 19% of traders keep alts</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/">CryptoSlate</a>.</p>

2026/9/23
阅读更多

Why Mastercard’s $25 billion crypto expansion isn’t what it seems

<p>SoFi Bank and Mastercard have announced SoFiUSD settlement is live for the bank's debit and credit card program, moving their March plan into production.</p> <p>The rollout puts a token-based settlement route behind familiar card payments and, according to SoFi, gives participating merchants a way to receive dollars in a bank account without holding the token. SoFi expects more than $25 billion in annualized card-program volume after migration; it has not disclosed how much has actually settled in SoFiUSD.</p> <p>The <a href="https://investors.sofi.com/news/news-details/2026/SoFi-Becomes-First-National-Bank-to-Go-Live-with-Stablecoin-Settlement-across-Mastercards-Global-Payments-Network/default.aspx">migration</a> remains underway. Cardholders can keep using existing cards, while SoFi describes a bank-account cash route for merchants and separate redemption rules for token holders. Those groups encounter different parts of the arrangement, so a live blockchain transaction alone says little about the scale of merchant benefit or token-holder access.</p> <h2>From a planned rail to live settlement</h2> <p>The <a href="https://www.mastercard.com/us/en/news-and-trends/press/2026/march/sofi-and-mastercard-partner-to-enable-sofiusd-settlement-across-.html">March partnership announcement</a> described SoFiUSD settlement as a future option. The companies' September release says transactions are now occurring on a blockchain for SoFi Bank's card program. The full-program migration is still in progress, and SoFi has not given a completion date.</p> <p>SoFi expects the program to process more than $25 billion annually using SoFiUSD after that migration. The figure is a projection of card activity at an eventual run rate. SoFi has not disclosed the amount or share of transactions already settled in the token. That missing denominator prevents readers from treating the projected program size as the stablecoin's observed throughput.</p> <div class="cs-article-embed"> <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/is-mastercard-embracing-crypto-or-trying-to-contain-it/" class="cs-article-embed__link"> <div class="cs-article-embed__body"> <span class="cs-article-embed__related-reading">Related Reading</span> <h3 class="cs-article-embed__title">Mastercard frantically doubles down on crypto to avoid becoming irrelevant and losing control</h3> </div> <span class="cs-article-embed__arrow" aria-hidden="true"> <i class="fa-light fa-arrow-up-right"></i> </span> </a> </div> <p>The token operates behind cards people already carry. SoFi says merchants need no stablecoin holdings or new infrastructure to use its proposed route, and the companies describe no requirement for consumers to acquire crypto at checkout. The visible card payment and the settlement path can therefore change on different schedules.</p> <p>For merchants, the useful measure is when settlement becomes spendable cash. The September release offers no measured before-and-after comparison of that timing or of cost for this program. A working transaction establishes operating status; merchant-level results would establish the economic effect.</p> <p>SoFi says businesses using its <a href="https://investors.sofi.com/news/news-details/2026/SoFi-Launches-Big-Business-Banking-to-Power-Fiat-and-Crypto-Banking-on-a-Single-Regulated-Platform/default.aspx">Big Business Banking platform</a> can receive settlement funds immediately in a SoFi Bank account and access cash around the clock without holding SoFiUSD. That is the bank's product claim. The September release names no live outside merchant settlement customer and says discussions with large US merchants continue. Its April platform announcement described business deposit accounts, continuous fiat and token transfers, and mint-and-burn conversion as capabilities the platform would include.</p> <p>In the arrangement SoFi describes, the merchant's usable balance is held in a bank account while the stablecoin moves value through settlement. That division could spare a business from managing a token wallet. Actual outside-merchant use and measured cash-availability gains would show how far the capability extends beyond SoFi's own card program.</p> <h2>Account dollars and token rights</h2> <p>A merchant paid into a bank account and a party receiving SOFID on-chain hold different claims. The issuer's redemption and risk terms govern the token holder; the card transaction itself does not make the shopper or merchant a direct redemption customer.</p> <p>SoFi Bank, a nationally chartered bank regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, issues SoFiUSD and describes it as intended for one-for-one dollar redemption. Under <a href="https://www.sofi.com/crypto/legal/sofid-terms/">SOFID's terms</a>, direct redemption is available only to approved SoFi customers with separate agreements, subject to conditions and fees. Receiving the token on-chain does not transfer that issuer claim. The terms also allow delays or suspensions under specified conditions.</p> <p>Bank deposits and tokens carry different protections. SoFi's <a href="https://www.sofi.com/crypto/sofiusd/">product disclosure</a> says SoFiUSD itself is not a deposit, lacks FDIC and SIPC insurance and may be subject to delay, disruption or permanent loss. A bank-account payout may be useful precisely because the merchant can receive dollars without taking those token-holder risks.</p> <p>The reserve terms add another distinction. SoFi's September release describes the token's reserves as primarily cash. The issuer's terms also permit cash equivalents and other legally allowed liquid instruments, with no fixed composition promised at every point. The release describes the backing policy but provides no point-in-time reserve breakdown.</p> <p>The <a href="https://www.sofi.com/crypto/legal/sofid-terms/">terms</a> also exclude people and entities located in, resident in or subject to UK or European Economic Area laws from acquiring, holding, transferring or using SOFID. Token eligibility and ordinary card acceptance follow different rules. That restriction concerns token participation; it does not establish a ban on card purchases in those markets.</p> <div class="cs-article-embed"> <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/us-bank-moves-usbdc-across-borders-on-stellar-but-only-inside-its-own-walls/" class="cs-article-embed__link"> <div class="cs-article-embed__body"> <span class="cs-article-embed__related-reading">Related Reading</span> <h3 class="cs-article-embed__title">US Bank moves USBDC across borders on Stellar, but only inside its own walls</h3> </div> <span class="cs-article-embed__arrow" aria-hidden="true"> <i class="fa-light fa-arrow-up-right"></i> </span> </a> </div> <h2>The scale the networks can actually show</h2> <p>Mastercard <a href="https://www.mastercard.com/us/en/news-and-trends/press/2026/june/mastercard-expands-settlement-capabilities-to-include-stablecoin.html">outlined</a> a broader settlement menu in June: regulated stablecoins alongside additional fiat timing options. It said USDC had supported early on-chain settlement in select markets and named Paxos-issued coins, RLUSD and SoFiUSD for planned support across multiple networks. SoFi's launch puts one bank-issued coin into use within that wider strategy. Mastercard has not disclosed the eventual traffic share of each token or said every planned pairing is live.</p> <p>Visa offers a separate measure of scale. It <a href="https://investor.visa.com/news/news-details/2026/Visa-Brings-Onchain-Lending-into-Everyday-Payments/default.aspx">reported on Sept. 8</a> that stablecoin settlement volume had recently exceeded a $20 billion annualized run rate. That reported run rate tracks stablecoin settlement activity. SoFi's projected figure covers future annualized card-program volume after migration, so the two figures cannot rank the networks' current stablecoin settlement volumes.</p> <div class="cs-article-embed"> <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/visas-2-5-billion-onchain-credit-bet-puts-card-settlement-financing-onchain/" class="cs-article-embed__link"> <div class="cs-article-embed__body"> <span class="cs-article-embed__related-reading">Related Reading</span> <h3 class="cs-article-embed__title">Visa is quietly routing $2.5 billion in credit through smart contracts, and no one knows who carries the risk</h3> </div> <span class="cs-article-embed__arrow" aria-hidden="true"> <i class="fa-light fa-arrow-up-right"></i> </span> </a> </div> <p>SoFi and Mastercard have moved a named bank-issued stablecoin from a proposed card-settlement option to a live one. The next evidence that would establish its wider consequence is actual token-settled volume, outside-merchant adoption and measured access to spendable cash. Until those results are disclosed, the working route is clearer than its commercial scale.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/sofis-mastercard-stablecoin-settlement-is-live-but-its-25-billion-figure-is-still-a-projection/">Why Mastercard’s $25 billion crypto expansion isn’t what it seems</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/">CryptoSlate</a>.</p>

2026/9/23
阅读更多

Europe’s central banks want to scrap this stablecoin reserve safeguard

<p>EU rules require stablecoins issued by electronic-money institutions to keep at least 30% of their reserves in commercial-bank deposits, rising to 60% for significant tokens. Britain's policy for systemic sterling stablecoin reserves excludes those deposits from coin backing. European central banks now want to remove the EU requirement, bringing the two approaches closer on the risk banks pose to stablecoin reserves.</p> <p>Reuters reported on Sept. 22 that the European System of Central Banks, comprising the European Central Bank and EU national central banks, <a href="https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business/ecb-eu-central-banks-oppose-stablecoin-bank-deposit-rule-6402091">recommended replacing the compulsory bank-deposit share</a> under the Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation with minimum reserve percentages in assets maturing within one and five working days. The proposal would change where issuers must keep redemption money; MiCA's existing requirements remain in force.</p> <p>The same day marks the <a href="https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/paper/2026/ps/sterling-denominated-systemic-stablecoin">Bank of England's consultation deadline</a> for its draft systemic stablecoin Code of Practice. Its June policy already ruled out commercial-bank backing because of financial, operational and contagion risks. The Bank intends to finalize the code by the end of 2026.</p> <p>The regimes cover different types of issuer and are at different stages of implementation. Yet the recommendation points toward a shared concern: putting stablecoin reserves in banks can connect two sources of financial stress.</p> <div class="cs-article-embed"> <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/europe-is-actively-trying-to-stop-the-dollar-stablecoin-takeover/" class="cs-article-embed__link"> <div class="cs-article-embed__body"> <span class="cs-article-embed__related-reading">Related Reading</span> <h3 class="cs-article-embed__title">Europe is actively trying to stop the dollar stablecoin takeover</h3> </div> <span class="cs-article-embed__arrow" aria-hidden="true"> <i class="fa-light fa-arrow-up-right"></i> </span> </a> </div> <h2>A stablecoin reserve can protect a coin and expose a bank</h2> <p>MiCA's deposit requirements make commercial banks part of the mechanism for meeting redemptions. Cash that backs a token also becomes funding for the bank where the issuer holds it, tying the coin's ability to repay holders to that bank's ability to return the money.</p> <p>The problem runs in both directions. In a <a href="https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2026/html/ecb.sp260601~38dffe5ec5.et.html">June speech</a>, the ECB explained that bank failure can damage confidence in the quality and availability of stablecoin reserves. USDC's March 2023 loss of its peg, when some backing sat at failing Silicon Valley Bank, illustrated that exposure.</p> <p>Reverse the sequence and the risk moves into the banking system. If holders rush to redeem a stablecoin, the issuer may withdraw large deposits from its banks to repay them. Money held as a reserve for token holders becomes funding that a bank can lose abruptly.</p> <p>The reserve can therefore transmit a run as well as help meet one. An issuer's attempt to honor its promise to token holders can force its banks to replace funding at precisely the moment confidence is weakening.</p> <p>The recommendation reported by Reuters would focus requirements on short-maturity assets. Its proposed relaxation of a compulsory bank allocation differs from Britain's outright exclusion of commercial-bank backing.</p> <p>The Bank of England's steady-state policy allows up to 70% in short-term UK government debt with no more than six months remaining to maturity, with 30% in central-bank deposits that pay no interest. Eligible issuers deemed systemic at launch can initially hold up to 95% in government debt as they scale.</p> <div class="cs-article-embed"> <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/the-uk-softened-stablecoin-rules-but-may-still-be-capping-its-own-market/" class="cs-article-embed__link"> <div class="cs-article-embed__body"> <span class="cs-article-embed__related-reading">Related Reading</span> <h3 class="cs-article-embed__title">The UK softened stablecoin rules, but may still be capping its own market</h3> </div> <span class="cs-article-embed__arrow" aria-hidden="true"> <i class="fa-light fa-arrow-up-right"></i> </span> </a> </div> <p>Central-bank deposits give the UK model a different source of redemption cash, alongside its securities holdings.</p> <p>The regime primarily covers sterling stablecoins widely used in payments, jointly regulated by the Bank and Financial Conduct Authority after Treasury recognition. CryptoSlate <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bank-of-england-stablecoin-path-pound-tokens-face-40b-ceiling/">covered the June policy</a> when it was announced, ahead of the consultation ending today.</p> <p>There is a reason to retain a substantial cash buffer. An <a href="https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/financial-stability-publications/macroprudential-bulletin/html/ecb.mpbu202604_05.de.html">ECB analysis of sovereign-bond markets</a> argues that significant stablecoins issued by electronic-money institutions could meet redemptions equal to 60% of supply by drawing down deposits, without immediately selling sovereign bonds.</p> <p>That benefit depends on the deposits being available. It nevertheless captures the trade-off: avoiding commercial-bank credit exposure can leave issuers needing to turn securities into cash when holders want repayment. Even short-dated securities can fluctuate in value or prove difficult to turn into cash under stress.</p> <div class="cs-article-embed"> <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/coinbase-gives-community-banks-a-stablecoin-bridge-while-supplying-infrastructure-underneath/" class="cs-article-embed__link"> <div class="cs-article-embed__body"> <span class="cs-article-embed__related-reading">Related Reading</span> <h3 class="cs-article-embed__title">Coinbase gives community banks a stablecoin bridge while supplying infrastructure underneath</h3> </div> <span class="cs-article-embed__arrow" aria-hidden="true"> <i class="fa-light fa-arrow-up-right"></i> </span> </a> </div> <p>Britain's policy includes financial risk reserves and a planned central-bank liquidity backstop. Those protections address the difficulty of producing redemption cash under stress, when securities must be sold or financed to meet withdrawals.</p> <p>For EU issuers, the next decisive step would be a change to <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1114/oj/eng">MiCA's statutory floors</a>. Removing the floors requires legislative amendment through the EU's <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/adopting-eu-law_en">lawmaking process</a>. Until then, the deposit requirements remain the operating constraint.</p> <p>For token holders, the comparison exposes what a stablecoin reserve percentage cannot answer by itself: whether the backing remains accessible, and how quickly it can become cash when redemptions accelerate.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/europes-central-banks-want-to-scrap-this-stablecoin-reserve-safeguard/">Europe’s central banks want to scrap this stablecoin reserve safeguard</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/">CryptoSlate</a>.</p>

2026/9/23
阅读更多

Coinbase traced $1.1 million crypto trail behind AI phishing service EvilTokens

<p>Microsoft and <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/companies/coinbase/">Coinbase</a> helped dismantle EvilTokens, an AI phishing service tied to more than 12,000 compromised inboxes worldwide.</p> <p>The operation had reached more than 10,000 organizations within months of launching, spanning financial services, real estate, healthcare, construction and other industries, Microsoft <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2026/09/22/unmasking-eviltokens-getting-to-the-root-of-device-code-phishing/">said</a>.</p> <p>The company and its partners seized 50 websites used by EvilTokens and disabled more than 150 related domains, while UK police arrested two men on Sept. 11 on suspicion of offenses connected to the alleged operation. Police later released both on conditional bail.</p> <h2>EvilTokens' phishing service relied on AI use</h2> <p>EvilTokens had packaged much of the <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/attackers-exploit-fake-stm32-vulnerability-alert-to-target-trezor-and-bitbox-holders/">business-email-compromise</a> process into a subscription service sold through <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/companies/telegram/">Telegram</a>. Microsoft said customers paid a $1,500 initiation fee and $500 recurring subscription for tools that combined account compromise, mailbox access, reconnaissance, and AI-assisted fraud preparation in a single interface.</p> <p>The service’s entry point relied on Microsoft’s device-code authentication, a legitimate sign-in flow designed for hardware such as smart TVs and conferencing equipment that cannot easily support standard browser logins.</p> <p>Attackers initiated the authentication request themselves, then sent the resulting code to targets through <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/crypto-industry-alarmed-as-7-million-opensea-email-users-leak-resurfaces/">phishing emails</a> disguised as invoices, shared files, and other routine business communications.</p> <p>Victims who entered that code on Microsoft’s legitimate website effectively approved the session waiting on the attacker’s device.</p> <p>The process could still require a password and multifactor authentication when the user was signed out, but those credentials remained on Microsoft’s infrastructure. The process generated authorization for the attacker-initiated session.</p> <p>That gave EvilTokens something more useful than a stolen password: an authenticated foothold inside the mailbox. The platform then automated work that has traditionally required attackers to spend hours reading correspondence and reconstructing how an organization moves money.</p> <p></p> <p>Its AI tools could translate and summarize messages, identify reporting lines and trusted contacts, surface pending invoices and wire-transfer conversations, and determine which employees had authority over payments.</p> <p>Microsoft said preset prompts could identify an organization’s “money movers” and recommend people to impersonate, letting customers move from account access to targeted fraud with far less manual reconnaissance.</p> <p>Investigators also found evidence that parts of EvilTokens were built with <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/hp-says-fake-ai-trading-bot-swapped-crypto-wallet-extensions-for-credential-stealing-copies/">AI-assisted coding tools</a>, lowering the technical burden on both sides of the operation.</p> <div class="cs-article-embed"> <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/ai-was-supposed-to-take-scammers-jobs-but-it-gave-them-superpowers-instead/" class="cs-article-embed__link"> <div class="cs-article-embed__body"> <span class="cs-article-embed__related-reading">Related Reading</span> <h3 class="cs-article-embed__title">AI was supposed to take scammers’ jobs, but it gave them superpowers instead</h3> </div> <span class="cs-article-embed__arrow" aria-hidden="true"> <i class="fa-light fa-arrow-up-right"></i> </span> </a> </div> <p>The result was a service that could help less-skilled customers gain access to an account, understand its contents, and prepare an impersonation campaign without assembling each capability separately.</p> <h2>Crypto payments gave investigators a trail</h2> <p>The subscription model also created the financial trail Coinbase used to work backward through the operation.</p> <p>Coinbase’s Global Intelligence team <a href="https://www.coinbase.com/blog/taking-down-evil-tokens">traced</a> about $1.1 million in EvilTokens platform revenue across four <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/blockchain/tron/">Tron</a> addresses between October 2025 and June 2026. It identified more than 1,000 deposits from over 700 distinct addresses and mapped flows from payments into EvilTokens through their eventual cash-out destinations. The figures represent revenue paid to the service rather than the amount ultimately stolen from phishing victims.</p> <p>Coinbase said it combined transaction data with merchant records, device information and open-source intelligence to help attribute the platform to its alleged operators before referring the matter to London’s Metropolitan Police.</p> <p>The exchange also investigated EvilTokens purchasers it identified on its own platform and referred those cases to law enforcement. Its evidence contributed to Microsoft’s civil action against the service.</p> <p>Coinbase customers were also among those caught downstream. The exchange said some users were manipulated through compromised email conversations into sending cryptocurrency to scam-controlled addresses. Coinbase accounts and credentials were not compromised.</p> <p>The disruption interrupted an operation that was already looking beyond Microsoft. Coinbase said EvilTokens’ operator had&nbsp;<span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">signaled plans to extend the&nbsp;<a href="https://cryptoslate.com/phishing-scammers-now-exploiting-googles-infrastructure-to-target-crypto-users/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">toolkit to Gmail</a> and Okta accounts, potentially spreading</span>&nbsp;the same model across other identity platforms.</p> <p>Microsoft warned that removing the service’s current infrastructure would not eliminate the method. The company recommends organizations block device-code authentication where it is unnecessary and tightly restrict it where operationally required. For accounts suspected of compromise, it advises revoking refresh tokens, forcing reauthentication and, in some cases, temporarily disabling the account.</p> <p>That last step can carry a short-term operational cost, but Microsoft said standard session revocation may leave existing access tokens usable for up to an hour. Attackers have exploited that window in recent campaigns, leaving security teams to choose between brief disruption to legitimate users and continued access for someone already inside the mailbox.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/coinbase-traced-1-1-million-crypto-trail-behind-ai-phishing-service-eviltokens/">Coinbase traced $1.1 million crypto trail behind AI phishing service EvilTokens</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/">CryptoSlate</a>.</p>

2026/9/23
阅读更多

Bitcoin faces $16 billion options expiry Friday, then two more tests hit the rally

<p>Bitcoin options carrying roughly $16 billion in notional value expire on Deribit at 08:00 UTC on Friday, Sept. 25. Calls account for about $9.6 billion of that open interest and puts for about $6.4 billion.</p> <p>Bitcoin trades near $86,300 heading into the settlement, <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-just-broke-85000-but-the-rally-is-being-powered-by-traders-forced-to-buy/">after climbing above $85,000</a> this week. Two US economic releases and the expiry of CME's September Bitcoin futures follow within seven hours, stacking three separate tests into one trading day.</p> <h2>The equity side settled first</h2> <p><a href="https://cryptoslate.com/companies/ledn/">Ledn</a> co-founder Mauricio Di Bartolomeo sees Friday as the second half <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoins-2-24-billion-friday-options-expiry-teased-a-reversal-then-gave-it-back-within-hours/">of an expiry cycle</a> that began on Wall Street.</p> <p>He said in a note to <em>CryptoSlate</em> that quarterly expirations like September's are a two-act event. Options on <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/companies/blackrock/">BlackRock's</a> iShares Bitcoin Trust expired last week in <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoins-fed-move-could-run-straight-into-a-6-3-billion-ibit-options-wall/">IBIT's largest single expiration on record</a>, and he described the book as heavily tilted toward calls.</p> <p>In his account, Bitcoin's rally through $80,000 pushed many of those calls into the money, and dealers short those contracts bought <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/products/ishares-bitcoin-trust/">IBIT</a> shares to stay hedged.</p> <p>Di Bartolomeo argued that this demand reached Bitcoin itself once it grew large enough to require new IBIT shares, a process that pulls spot Bitcoin into the fund through authorized participants. He expects the <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/companies/deribit/">Deribit</a> book to inherit the same setup.</p> <p>He noted:</p> <blockquote><p>“If the move continues, the large call blocks at $85,000 and $100,000 are where the same dynamic kicks in on the Deribit book.”</p></blockquote> <p>Calls make up about 60% of Friday's expiring open interest. Estimating how dealers hedge that book requires an assumption about which side of each contract they hold, since exchange data records open interest in aggregate.</p> <p>ByKaranteli's open-source gamma model, which its authors present as a map of possible hedging flows under one such assumption, places the <a href="https://bykaranteli.com/options">largest call wall at $95,000</a> and the largest put wall at $60,000. It also puts the put-to-call ratio at 0.52 and the zero-gamma level near $71,000.</p> <p>That zero-gamma level sits where dealer hedging flips character.</p> <p>Above it, dealers who are net long gamma sell into rallies and buy dips, absorbing moves and pulling price toward heavily populated strikes. Below it, net short gamma forces dealers to buy as price climbs and sell as it falls, amplifying whatever move is underway.</p> <p>With Bitcoin trading in the $86,000 zone, the model places the market comfortably inside the zone it treats as stabilizing.</p> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Metric</th> <th align="right">Current reading</th> <th>Why it matters</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Total BTC options expiring</td> <td align="right">~$16B</td> <td>Large enough to affect hedging and liquidity conditions</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Calls expiring</td> <td align="right">~$9.6B</td> <td>Calls dominate the book</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Puts expiring</td> <td align="right">~$6.4B</td> <td>Downside hedges remain material</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Call share of OI</td> <td align="right">~60%</td> <td>Shows upside positioning, but not dealer direction</td> </tr> <tr> <td>BTC spot level</td> <td align="right">~$86,300</td> <td>Near active strike zones</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Largest call wall</td> <td align="right">$95,000</td> <td>Main upside concentration in the gamma model</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Largest put wall</td> <td align="right">$60,000</td> <td>Main downside concentration</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Zero-gamma level</td> <td align="right">~$71,000</td> <td>Model’s flip point between stabilizing and amplifying hedging</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h2>Bitcoin options markets are pricing a moderate move</h2> <p>Deribit's DVOL index stood at 38.1 on Sept. 22, a reading ByKaranteli classifies as very low across five years of history. Friday's at-the-money implied volatility was also 38.1%, and skew was near neutral, with 25-delta puts and calls both priced near 39.2%.</p> <p>At that level, a one-standard-deviation move through Friday works out to about $2,720, or 3.15%, placing a rough band between $83,600 and $89,100. That band puts $90,000 at its outer edge and leaves the $95,000 call wall as a distant target.</p> <p>Deribit sets its delivery price using a 30-minute time-weighted average of its Bitcoin index between 07:30 and 08:00 UTC.</p> <div class="cs-article-embed"> <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-just-broke-85000-but-the-rally-is-being-powered-by-traders-forced-to-buy/" class="cs-article-embed__link"> <div class="cs-article-embed__body"> <span class="cs-article-embed__related-reading">Related Reading</span> <h3 class="cs-article-embed__title">Bitcoin hits $85,000 after $648M wipeout forces mass buying</h3> </div> <span class="cs-article-embed__arrow" aria-hidden="true"> <i class="fa-light fa-arrow-up-right"></i> </span> </a> </div> <p>A 2026 study published in Finance Research Letters found intraday Bitcoin price reversals around Deribit expirations that held up under statistical testing, strongest when at-the-money <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612326008688">open interest ran high</a> and estimated gamma exposure was negative.</p> <p>The same research recorded heavier trading in Deribit perpetuals and in the spot venues feeding the settlement index during those windows.</p> <p>ByKaranteli's model places the market in positive gamma at current prices, a different condition from the one where the study found the effect strongest. A sharp move that reverses within two hours of 08:00 UTC would fit that documented pattern, and a move that holds through the afternoon's events would carry broader confirmation.</p> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Input / Level</th> <th align="right">Value</th> <th>Interpretation</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Deribit DVOL</td> <td align="right">38.1</td> <td>Low by five-year history, according to ByKaranteli</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Friday ATM implied volatility</td> <td align="right">38.1%</td> <td>Moderate expected movement</td> </tr> <tr> <td>25-delta put IV</td> <td align="right">~39.2%</td> <td>Downside protection not heavily bid</td> </tr> <tr> <td>25-delta call IV</td> <td align="right">~39.2%</td> <td>Skew near neutral</td> </tr> <tr> <td>1-standard-deviation move</td> <td align="right">~$2,720</td> <td>Approximate expected move through expiry</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Lower implied band</td> <td align="right">~$83,600</td> <td>Downside edge of the near-term range</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Upper implied band</td> <td align="right">~$89,100</td> <td>Upside edge of the near-term range</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Nearby upside threshold</td> <td align="right">$90,000</td> <td>Just beyond the implied band</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Major call wall</td> <td align="right">$95,000</td> <td>Further outside the priced move</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h2>The afternoon handoff</h2> <p>US durable goods orders arrive at 12:30 UTC, four and a half hours past Deribit's settlement. The University of Michigan's final September consumer sentiment reading, which includes inflation expectations, lands at 14:00 UTC, and <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/companies/cme-group/">CME's</a> September Bitcoin futures settle against the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate at 15:00 UTC.</p> <p>The Fed raised its target range to 3.75% to 4.00% on Sept. 16, leaving both data points relevant to rate-sensitive assets.</p> <p>Once Deribit's contracts settle, the hedges tied to them unwind or roll into October and December expiries. A macro surprise at 12:30 or 14:00 UTC then meets whatever hedging structure survives that reset.</p> <p>If the expired book had been stabilizing price, the same surprise could produce a larger move than it did the day before.</p> <p>US spot Bitcoin ETFs took in $159.5 million on Sept. 17, $433 million on Sept. 18 <a href="https://farside.co.uk/btc/">and $999 million on Sept. 21</a>, according to <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/companies/farside-investors/">Farside Investors</a>.</p> <p>Monday's rally also included about $647.9 million in short liquidations out of $746.6 million in total liquidations over 24 hours, while aggregate crypto open interest climbed 7.59% to $156 billion.</p> <p>The rally is supported by spot buying through ETFs and fresh leverage on top of forced short covering.</p> <table> <thead> <tr> <th align="right">Time UTC</th> <th>Event</th> <th>Market risk</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="right">07:30–08:00</td> <td>Deribit settlement-price window</td> <td>Hedging, rolls, and expiry-linked flows may concentrate trading</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right">08:00</td> <td>~$16B BTC options expire</td> <td>Expiring gamma either disappears or rolls forward</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right">12:30</td> <td>US durable goods orders</td> <td>First macro test after the options reset</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right">14:00</td> <td>University of Michigan sentiment</td> <td>Inflation expectations may affect rate-sensitive assets</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right">15:00</td> <td>CME September Bitcoin futures settlement</td> <td>Second derivatives settlement closes the sequence</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h2>Bitcoin's rally faces three tests</h2> <p>The bull case has Bitcoin climbing toward $90,000 before settlement while ETF inflows continue and funding stays positive at moderate levels. Traders roll expiring calls into October and December contracts, and price holds through the durable goods, sentiment, and CME events.</p> <p>Under that path, the $85,000 and $100,000 call blocks Di Bartolomeo flagged become active on the Deribit book, and buyers replace the hedging flows that expired.</p> <p>The bear case has Bitcoin stalling between $88,000 and $90,000 as ETF flows slow and perpetual futures open interest stays elevated. The strength built into expiry fades once the book settles, and a firmer-than-expected durable goods or inflation-expectations reading hits a market carrying fewer hedges.</p> <p>In that scenario, Bitcoin slides toward the lower edge of the implied band near $83,600, with $80,000 as the next level beneath it.</p> <p>Deribit's settlement opens Friday at 08:00 UTC and CME's closes it at 15:00 UTC. Bitcoin's rally holds through that window if the buyers behind it remain in the market once every hedge tied to the expiring contracts has cleared.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-faces-16-billion-options-expiry-friday-then-two-more-tests-hit-the-rally/">Bitcoin faces $16 billion options expiry Friday, then two more tests hit the rally</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/">CryptoSlate</a>.</p>

2026/9/23
阅读更多

EU central banks attack MiCA rules and stablecoin runs are blamed

<p>Europe’s central banks want the European Union to rethink a rule designed to make stablecoins safer, but that can also link a token run directly to the banking system.</p> <p>For reserve amounts tied to official currencies, MiCA currently requires issuers of non-significant tokens to keep at least 30% as deposits with EU credit institutions. The floor rises to 60% for significant tokens, according to the <a href="https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-06/580db2f3-8370-4927-baa3-0f995722b417/Final%20report_draft%20RTS%20further%20specifying%20the%20liquidity%20requirements%20Article%2036%204.pdf">European Banking Authority’s technical standards</a>.</p> <p><a href="https://wtvbam.com/2026/09/22/ecb-eu-central-banks-oppose-stablecoin-bank-deposit-rule/">Reuters</a> and <a href="https://cincodias.elpais.com/criptoactivos/2026-09-22/el-bce-recomienda-flexibilizar-los-requisitos-de-liquidez-para-los-emisores-de-stablecoins.html">Cinco Días</a> reported Sept. 22 that the European System of Central Banks wants that fixed minimum removed. Deposits would remain eligible, while reserve safety would turn on how much could become cash within one or five working days.</p> <p>The position is input to the European Commission’s review of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation. The <a href="https://finance.ec.europa.eu/regulation-and-supervision/consultations-0/targeted-consultation-review-mica-regulation_en">consultation</a> runs through Sept. 30, and the Commission says the responses may inform a later legislative proposal.</p> <p>That leaves a policy question open: can Europe loosen the link between stablecoins and bank funding while preserving the liquidity needed for redemptions?</p> <h2>How MiCA’s deposit floor creates a two-way channel</h2> <p>Bank deposits give an issuer cash it can use when token holders redeem. Yet a deposit is also a claim on a bank, and a mandatory allocation makes the token’s reserve quality partly dependent on the condition of the institutions holding that money.</p> <p>During the March 2023 banking turmoil, Circle held part of USDC’s reserves at Silicon Valley Bank, and uncertainty over access to those funds pressured the token’s peg. USDC’s market capitalization fell 26% over a month, according to an <a href="https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/financial-stability-publications/macroprudential-bulletin/html/ecb.mpbu202604_05.en.html">ECB analysis</a>.</p> <p>An issuer facing heavy withdrawals may pull large bank deposits at once, so stablecoin reserves that had looked like funding to a receiving bank can then behave like flighty wholesale money.</p> <p>An <a href="https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2026/html/ecb.sp260601~38dffe5ec5.en.html">ECB speech</a> described how redemptions could force a stablecoin issuer to withdraw reserves and pressure a bank’s liquidity. An <a href="https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp3199~ad552b59ec.en.pdf">ECB working paper</a> added that issuers may concentrate their deposits among a small number of banks.</p> <p>Euro-denominated stablecoins had a market capitalization of about €450 million in January 2026, compared with roughly $300 billion for dollar-denominated tokens. Crypto-platform and stablecoin deposits also remain small relative to the assets of exposed euro-area banks.</p> <p>The policy concern centers on the concentration and behavior of reserve deposits if adoption grows.</p> <p>A fixed quota can create two reciprocal exposures. Bank distress can impair the reserves behind a token, while a token run can drain a bank's funding. The rule improves immediate access to money in ordinary conditions, but it also determines where stress first lands.</p> <p>The reported ESCB alternative focuses on the redemption timetable. For official-currency tokens, it would use existing EBA liquidity buckets: at least 20% of reserves available within one working day and 30% within five days for non-significant tokens.</p> <p>The thresholds rise to 40% and 60% for significant tokens. Those tests preserve a near-cash buffer while allowing issuers to meet it with a broader regulated mix of assets.</p> <h2>What a maturity test changes</h2> <p>The proposal would replace a rule about where a set share of reserves must sit with a test of how quickly the whole reserve can produce cash.</p> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Feature</th> <th>Current MiCA framework</th> <th>Reported ESCB approach</th> <th>Main effect</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Bank deposits</td> <td>At least 30% for non-significant tokens and 60% for significant tokens</td> <td>No fixed minimum deposit share</td> <td>Deposits remain eligible while issuers gain allocation flexibility</td> </tr> <tr> <td>One-day liquidity</td> <td>Part of the wider reserve framework</td> <td>At least 20% for non-significant tokens and 40% for significant tokens</td> <td>Tests immediate redemption capacity</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Five-day liquidity</td> <td>Part of the wider reserve framework</td> <td>At least 30% for non-significant tokens and 60% for significant tokens</td> <td>Adds a broader near-cash buffer</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Reserve exposure</td> <td>A mandated share sits with commercial banks</td> <td>More room for short-term securities and reverse repos</td> <td>Bank linkage falls as market exposure rises</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>Under the EBA framework, withdrawable cash and reverse repurchase agreements that can be terminated within the relevant window can count toward the thresholds. Specified highly liquid financial instruments can also qualify, while short maturity alone does not make an asset eligible.</p> <p>The EBA uses Liquidity Coverage Ratio categories to identify eligible instruments. Core Level 1 sovereign and public-sector assets sit in a 0% reference-haircut category, while extremely high-quality covered bonds carry a reference haircut of at least 7%.</p> <p>For reserve valuation, the rules disapply those haircuts and instead require overcollateralization to cover market-value risks.</p> <p>Draft safeguards cap an issuer’s deposit at one systemically important bank at 25% of reserves and 1.5% of that bank’s total assets. Qualifying securities and money-market instruments in the 0% reference-haircut category are capped at 35% of reserves when they come from one issuer.</p> <p>The change could improve issuer economics because short-term sovereign paper or repo positions may earn more than bank deposits. The result would likely shift some reserves, income, and risk toward government-debt and funding markets.</p> <p>Issuers would still have to satisfy liquidity, asset-quality, concentration and overcollateralization controls.</p> <p>An issuer holding short-term sovereign debt or an overnight reverse repo has less direct exposure to the failure of a particular deposit-taking bank. A redemption wave would be less likely to begin with the withdrawal of one large wholesale deposit.</p> <p>Heavy redemptions can force securities sales or repo unwinds. Concentrated holdings can carry stablecoin stress into sovereign or funding markets, while falling bond prices can weaken reserve values in the opposite direction.</p> <p>The ECB’s analysis of stablecoin demand for sovereign debt says the effect depends on the issuer type, its asset mix, and the sector that supplied the money used to buy the token.</p> <p>Reserve design therefore allocates rather than abolishes risk. A maturity-based rule may reduce the direct bank channel, but its safety depends on the credit quality, market depth and concentration of the assets used to meet redemptions.</p> <div class="cs-article-embed"> <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/how-mica-brings-banks-closer-to-controlling-europes-stablecoin-access/" class="cs-article-embed__link"> <div class="cs-article-embed__body"> <span class="cs-article-embed__related-reading">Related Reading</span> <h3 class="cs-article-embed__title">How MiCA brings banks closer to controlling Europe’s stablecoin access</h3> </div> <span class="cs-article-embed__arrow" aria-hidden="true"> <i class="fa-light fa-arrow-up-right"></i> </span> </a> </div> <h2>Tether wins one policy argument while licensing stays separate</h2> <p><a href="https://cryptoslate.com/companies/tether/">Tether</a> CEO <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/people/paolo-ardoino/">Paolo Ardoino</a>&nbsp;said the reported ESCB position <a href="https://x.com/paoloardoino/status/2102380280841425337">echoed Tether’s warning</a> about MiCA’s mandatory bank-deposit share. On that point, the company said that concentrating reserves in commercial banks can transmit distress between an issuer and a lender.</p> <p>Tether’s European position includes concerns about restrictions on non-euro stablecoins and other MiCA features. The company also wound down euro-backed EURT while calling for a more risk-averse framework, and USDT remains outside the group of tokens issued under a MiCA authorization.</p> <p>Removing the deposit floor would leave the broader regime in place. Issuers would still face requirements covering authorization, governance, capital, audits, reserve segregation, redemption, and prudential supervision.</p> <p>The proposal would neither confer an EU authorization on USDT nor settle Tether’s broader objections to the framework.</p> <p>The more consequential shift concerns control over reserve allocation. Commercial banks would lose a guaranteed share of official-currency reserves, while issuers would gain discretion within a regulated menu of deposits, short-term securities and repo arrangements.</p> <p>Sovereign-debt and funding markets could receive a larger share of the assets and yield as a result.</p> <p>Europe’s decision is ultimately about the architecture of redemption safety. A deposit quota emphasizes the location of reserves and anchors much of it inside banks, while a maturity test emphasizes how quickly a diversified reserve can turn into cash.</p> <p>The reported ESCB position favors the second model while retaining limits on eligibility, concentration and collateral.</p> <p>That framework can weaken one link in the contagion chain. Its success would depend on whether issuers can meet redemptions under stress without turning a stablecoin run into disorderly sales elsewhere in the financial system.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/eu-central-banks-attack-mica-rules-and-stablecoin-runs-are-blamed/">EU central banks attack MiCA rules and stablecoin runs are blamed</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/">CryptoSlate</a>.</p>

2026/9/23
阅读更多

Solana flips Ethereum in fees, while ETH holds the burn lead

<p>Solana generated more user fees than Ethereum in data provider DefiLlama's Sept. 22 dashboard snapshot, while Ethereum burned more fees. The split shows that users' spending can reach validators and applications without producing an equivalent benefit for someone simply holding the network's coin.</p> <p>The data provider's <a href="https://defillama.com/chain/solana">Solana overview</a> showed about $1.1 million in chain fees over 24 hours and $117,138 in reported chain revenue. <a href="https://defillama.com/chain/ethereum">Ethereum's overview</a> showed $649,423 in fees and $226,298 in revenue.</p> <p>For these two networks, the revenue measure tracks fees reported as burned, removing tokens from supply without paying holders cash.</p> <p>Solana also led on displayed seven-day and 30-day fees, while Ethereum retained a smaller lead in reported burns. Yet the dollar ranking does not settle which token offers better economics: new issuance, network value, and the share of validator income reaching stakers all change the comparison.</p> <p>DefiLlama's <a href="https://defillama.com/fees/chains">chain fee table</a> put Solana at $23.6 million over 30 days, compared with Ethereum's $12 million. Its <a href="https://defillama.com/revenue/chains">chain revenue table</a> showed a burn comparison of $2.66 million for Solana and $2.8 million for Ethereum.</p> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Displayed metric</th> <th>Solana</th> <th>Ethereum</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>24-hour chain fees</td> <td>About $1.10 million</td> <td>$649,423</td> </tr> <tr> <td>24-hour reported burns</td> <td>$117,138</td> <td>$226,298</td> </tr> <tr> <td>7-day chain fees</td> <td>$5.93 million</td> <td>$3.09 million</td> </tr> <tr> <td>7-day reported burns</td> <td>$698,884</td> <td>$761,849</td> </tr> <tr> <td>30-day chain fees</td> <td>$23.58 million</td> <td>$12.04 million</td> </tr> <tr> <td>30-day reported burns</td> <td>$2.66 million</td> <td>$2.80 million</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>Exact window endpoints were not disclosed, and Ethereum's shared revenue table showed a different daily figure of $229,846. The comparison consequently applies to the displayed aggregates, with synchronization limits.</p> <p>The longer windows also temper the daily headline. Ethereum's 30-day reported burn was only slightly larger than Solana's, even though its daily overview showed a much wider gap. Aggregate leadership over seven or 30 days does not mean either network led every individual day.</p> <h2>How fees reach validators, stakers and apps</h2> <p>Under <a href="https://solana.com/docs/core/fees/fee-structure">Solana's fee rules</a>, the base charge is 5,000 lamports per signature. Half of that base fee is burned, and half goes to the validator producing the block. The validator receives all priority fees, which users pay for transaction priority.</p> <p>That allocation makes fee composition important. A rise in priority fees increases validator receipts without directing that stream to burning, so higher total fees can coexist with a comparatively small burn figure.</p> <p><a href="https://ethereum.org/developers/docs/gas/">Ethereum</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://ethereum.org/developers/docs/gas/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> burns execution base fees</a></span>, while priority tips go to validators. DefiLlama's <a href="https://github.com/DefiLlama/dimension-adapters/blob/master/fees/ethereum/index.ts">Ethereum data-collection code</a> also includes blob fees in both total fees and reported burns. Two similar totals for user spending could affect supply differently, depending on the kinds of fees paid.</p> <p>The data-collection programs, known as adapters, estimate parts of these reported burns. DefiLlama's <a href="https://github.com/DefiLlama/dimension-adapters/blob/master/fees/solana.ts">Solana adapter</a> estimates base fees by multiplying transaction count by 5,000 lamports, although the protocol charges by signature.</p> <p><a href="https://cryptoslate.com/coins/ethereum/">Ethereum's adapter</a> uses each block's minimum effective transaction gas price as a proxy for its execution base fee and obtains blob fees separately from Dune. Neither estimate should be presented as a fully reconciled measurement of tokens destroyed.</p> <p>Burning reduces supply relative to what it would otherwise have been, and it does not credit a holder's wallet, establish that total supply is falling, or guarantee a price gain. Those are separate questions from how much users paid to transact.</p> <p>A validator's receipts are not automatically everyone's receipts when staking through it. <a href="https://solana.com/staking">Solana's staking documentation</a> describes inflationary rewards distributed to validators and delegated stake accounts, with commissions affecting what delegators receive.</p> <p>The yield also depends on total stake and validator performance. These newly issued rewards are separate from user fees.</p> <p>On July 2, 2025, <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/coins/solana/">Solana staking</a> infrastructure project Jito <a href="https://www.jito.network/blog/tiprouter-upgrade-facilitating-priority-fees/">announced a live upgrade</a> that lets validators distribute priority fees to their stakers. Validators' choices and commissions determine the distribution, and a sharing mechanism does not turn all chain fees into a uniform return for SOL stakers.</p> <p>For an ordinary holder, the relevant distinction is between owning the asset and participating in a particular reward arrangement.</p> <p>A passive holder receives no validator payment merely because chain fees rise, while a staker needs to know which rewards are included and what deductions apply before treating a quoted yield as fee income.</p> <p>Applications represent another destination for economic activity. The Sept. 22 overviews showed $7.7 million in 24-hour app revenue on Solana versus $1.9 million on Ethereum. App fees were $18.2 million and $8.5 million, respectively.</p> <p><a href="https://defillama.com/data-definitions">DefiLlama's definitions</a> separate app metrics from gas fees. They also define chain REV as chain fees plus maximum extractable value (MEV) tips. REV can describe a broader stream of transaction-related spending, but adding it to chain fees would count those fees twice.</p> <div class="cs-article-embed"> <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/ethereum-arbitrage-study-reveals-builders-receive-5-for-every-1-burned-by-the-network/" class="cs-article-embed__link"> <div class="cs-article-embed__body"> <span class="cs-article-embed__related-reading">Related Reading</span> <h3 class="cs-article-embed__title">Ethereum arbitrage study reveals builders receive $5 for every $1 burned by the network</h3> </div> <span class="cs-article-embed__arrow" aria-hidden="true"> <i class="fa-light fa-arrow-up-right"></i> </span> </a> </div> <h2>Valuation and issuance change the investment question</h2> <p>Ethereum's larger dollar burn sits against a much larger token valuation. The same Sept. 22 overview snapshots displayed market capitalizations of $335 billion for ETH and $69 billion for SOL. Nearly comparable 30-day reported burns represent a larger fraction of Solana's displayed market capitalization.</p> <p>A holder's yield requires a separate calculation. It compares a period's estimated burning with a valuation at one moment, and it says nothing by itself about tokens created during that period. A larger gross burn relative to market value can coexist with issuance that more than offsets it.</p> <p><a href="https://ethereum.org/en/roadmap/merge/issuance/">Ethereum's supply mechanics</a> make that distinction explicit: net supply depends on issuance and burning. Its Merge explainer's roughly 1,700 ETH-per-day example assumes about 14 million ETH staked, so it cannot serve as a current September 2026 issuance measurement.</p> <p>Without matched-period issuance for both networks, these fee tables cannot establish either a net supply advantage or a superior investment return.</p> <p>Solana's <a href="https://github.com/solana-foundation/solana-governance-proposals/blob/main/proposals/sgp-0002-double-disinflation.md">accepted SGP-0002 proposal</a> calls for increasing annual disinflation from 15% to 30%, but explicitly depends on SIMD-0550 acceptance and activation. Its current monetary effect depends on implementation.</p> <p>For holders comparing SOL and ETH, the decisive missing evidence is a matched-period account of tokens issued and burned, alongside the fees actually distributed after commissions.</p> <p>The September snapshot shows stronger fee generation on Solana and a larger reported dollar burn on Ethereum. Turning either observation into a return claim requires knowing how much reaches the holder, how much supply is added, and what valuation the buyer pays.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/solana-flips-ethereum-in-fees-while-eth-holds-the-burn-lead/">Solana flips Ethereum in fees, while ETH holds the burn lead</a> appeared first on <a href="https://cryptoslate.com/">CryptoSlate</a>.</p>

2026/9/23
阅读更多

推荐订阅

Language: | Chinese | English | | ------- | ------- | | zh | en |

Get latest news from TheBlock by category. Note that due to website limitations, only article summaries may be available.

| language | Description | | -------- | ----------- | | zh | 中文 | | en | English | | es | Español | | pt | Português | | jp | 日本語 | | ru | Русский | | ar | العربية |