Blockonomi

TLDR:
White House crypto leadership has no publicly named successor after Patrick Witt announced his departure and return to the private sector.
The departures of Witt, Bo Hines and Harry Jung leave questions about who will coordinate presidential priorities with lawmakers.
A White House official said cryptocurrency and the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act remain priorities for President Donald Trump.
Federal agencies continue digital asset rulemaking as the midterm elections approach and Congress faces further legislative work in 2027.
White House crypto leadership faces a vacancy after Patrick Witt announced his departure from government service last week. Witt, executive director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, said he would return to the private sector. No successor had been publicly named as of October 18.
His exit follows earlier departures by Bo Hines and Harry Jung. The staffing gap comes before the November midterm elections, while federal agencies continue developing digital asset rules. A White House official said that cryptocurrency and the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act remain priorities for President Donald Trump.
White House Crypto Vacancy Follows Several adviser Departures
Witt took over the council after serving as deputy to Hines, its first executive director. He subsequently became a prominent administration representative during negotiations over the CLARITY Act. CLARITY Act talks sought to establish a federal framework for cryptocurrency markets.
Witt reportedly confirmed his departure in a Wednesday night post on X. He thanked lawmakers and agency leaders involved in the legislative effort. His announcement pointed to a move into private business without naming his next employer.
Witt disclosed Georgia National Guard commitments in July but remained involved as negotiations over market structure legislation continued.
Hines had previously left government after helping advance the GENIUS Act, which established rules for stablecoin issuers. Jung also departed, adding to turnover among officials responsible for the administration’s digital asset agenda.
The White House crypto opening leaves an unanswered staffing question as legislative discussions continue. The administration has maintained its stated support for the sector. However, officials have not publicly identified who will take over Witt’s responsibilities.
The role involves more than appearances or industry meetings. It also provides a connection between presidential priorities, agency work and negotiations with lawmakers. That coordination could become particularly relevant when the next Congress begins work in 2027.
The broader policy structure already includes officials across multiple departments. A January 2025 executive order established the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets. Its membership includes Treasury leadership and the heads of the two principal federal market regulators.
That order assigned an executive director responsibility for coordinating the working group’s daily functions. It also required recommendations covering both regulatory changes and legislation.
Congress and Regulators Face a Crowded Digital Asset Agenda
White House crypto policy will face a different congressional setting after the midterm elections. Reportedly, that renewed legislative efforts in 2027 could address cryptocurrency taxes before returning to market structure reform. That sequence remains an expectation rather than an announced legislative timetable.
The election outcome will also influence negotiations. Democrats could gain control of the House of Representatives, creating a potentially less receptive chamber for administration proposals. The result remains undecided, and the staffing vacancy does not establish how lawmakers will vote.
A White House crypto liaison would provide legislators with a designated administration contact during those discussions. Without a publicly named replacement, the immediate question concerns who will represent presidential priorities in future negotiations.
Meanwhile, federal regulatory work continues across several agencies. The Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission remain involved in digital asset policymaking. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Treasury Department also have ongoing work affecting the sector.
These separate responsibilities mean congressional legislation represents only one part of the policy calendar. Agency rulemaking can proceed while lawmakers debate proposals, although regulators operate within their existing legal authority.
For White House crypto officials, the coming workload therefore spans personnel decisions, congressional outreach and coordination with financial regulators. The administration has not publicly set out a replacement process or appointment date.
The post White House Crypto Leadership Gap Grows as Patrick Witt Exits appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
Prediction markets traded $102.4 billion in contracts over 30 days, with about $25.7 billion paid.
Stablecoins hold a $302.34 billion market cap, while DeFi total value locked sits at $88.49 billion.
Tokenized real-world assets stand near $34.61 billion onchain, with $4.12 billion active in DeFi.
Four areas could drive DeFi’s next phase: stablecoin payments, lending, tokenization, and consumer apps.
DeFi is evolving, and attention is turning to what comes after betting and prediction markets. Prediction markets recorded $102.4 billion in contracts traded over 30 days, with about $25.7 billion actually paid.
Stablecoins hold a market capitalization of $302.34 billion. DeFi total value locked stands at $88.49 billion. Real-world assets represent roughly $34.61 billion onchain, with $4.12 billion used actively in DeFi. Prediction-market figures include centralized venues. Snapshots date from October 17 to 18, 2026.
From Token Swaps to Betting on Real-World Events
Deadline framed the question in a recent post. A few years ago, DeFi centered mainly on token swaps, yield farming, and staking. Memecoins and perpetual trading followed. Prediction markets such as Polymarket then gained traction. Today, DeFi is evolving again.
DeFi is evolving. But what comes after betting and prediction markets?
A few years ago, DeFi was mainly about token swaps, yield farming and staking.
Then came memecoins, perpetual trading and the explosive rise of prediction markets like @Polymarket.
Today, people aren't… pic.twitter.com/YgEIrSvtNn
— Deadline | ETHGas (@cryptodeadline) October 18, 2026
Under this model, people are not only trading crypto prices. They are trading expectations about real-world events. The post treats this change as a sign that financial innovation can expand beyond crypto tokens. Meanwhile, the post says other parts of DeFi offer something more practical.
Stablecoins, lending protocols, and tokenized assets are creating opportunities for more practical uses, according to the post.
These products connect onchain infrastructure with everyday financial needs. As a result, Deadline presents them as the direction after betting and prediction markets.
The first wave of DeFi was about making finance decentralized. The next wave, according to Deadline, could be about making decentralized finance genuinely useful. Prediction markets, in this view, are not the end of DeFi’s evolution. They are one part of a much bigger financial transformation.
How DeFi Is Evolving Toward Practical Use
Deadline outlined four areas that could shape the next phase. Stablecoin payments would move money across borders more efficiently. Onchain lending would expand access to borrowing and liquidity.
Real-world asset tokenization would bring traditional financial products onto blockchain infrastructure. In each case, DeFi is evolving toward use cases outside crypto trading.
The fourth area is consumer-friendly financial apps. These apps would let people use DeFi without understanding wallets, gas fees, or smart contracts.
For example, a user could receive payments, borrow money, or access investments through an app. The user would not need to know DeFi powers it. Deadline called that kind of adoption worth watching.
However, the post acknowledges obstacles. Security, regulation, and liquidity remain serious challenges for the sector. These issues remain alongside the growth in stablecoins, lending, and tokenized assets. Even so, Deadline says the bigger picture is becoming clearer, as DeFi is evolving beyond its first wave.
Deadline ended the post with a question for its audience. It asked whether stablecoins, tokenized assets, or onchain lending will lead the next growth phase. It also asked whether another sector is being overlooked. Readers were invited to share their views.
The post DeFi Is Evolving: What Comes After Betting and Prediction Markets? appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
NEAR trades near 4.895 after falling about 17% this week, with a low of 4.527 and the candle still open.
The 4.30 region acted as a recurring pivot during 2024 and anchors the long scenario in the chart.
The trade drawing sets entry at 4.316 and a stop at 3.928, about 9% below the planned entry.
A break above 6.00 would point to 7.847, a 2024 resistance level and 81.8% above the entry.
NEAR price is testing a former resistance zone after a sharp weekly pullback from 6.00. The token trades near 4.895 on the weekly chart. The current candle shows a decline of about 17%, with a low at 4.527.
That candle remains open. Price still sits above the 4.30 region, which now serves as the main support level for buyers. The move follows an advance through earlier resistance at 3.133 and roughly 4.30.
NEAR Price Breakout Faces First Major Test
Analyst Giannis Andreou shared the weekly chart on X and labeled the setup a breakout retest. He placed the next major objective at 7.85. The post describes a sharp advance through former resistance levels. Price then reached 6.00 before pulling back.
$NEAR: A BREAKOUT RETEST WITH 7.85 AS THE NEXT MAJOR OBJECTIVE
NEAR is trading around 4.895 on this weekly chart after a sharp advance through the former resistance levels at 3.133 and approximately 4.30. Price reached 6.00 before pulling back, placing the focus on whether… pic.twitter.com/pTtto5nCdZ
— Giannis Andreou (@gandreou007) October 18, 2026
The 4.30 region acted as a recurring pivot during 2024. Reclaiming it marks a change from the earlier bearish structure. The weekly chart marks it as the foundation of the long scenario. A successful retest requires buyers to defend the area and form a higher low.
The trade drawing sets entry at 4.316 with a stop at 3.928. That stop sits about 9% below the planned entry. A move through it would invalidate the setup. A sustained loss of the breakout region could raise the risk of a retracement toward 3.133.
The current weekly candle remains open, so the 17% decline may still change. The low at 4.527 stays above the marked support. Price therefore holds the breakout area for now. The 4.30 level remains the marked reference for buyers.
Upside Targets Near 6.00 and 7.85
The immediate hurdle is the recent high around 5.90–6.00. The yellow projection expects a bounce from support into that area. A pullback would follow, forming another higher low. Holding above the first retest low would show steady buyer support. The projection ends with a move back above that range.
A break above 6.00 would strengthen the case for continuation. The projected path then points toward 7.847. That area matches major historical resistance from 2024. Sellers previously defended the zone during that year, and the analyst treats it as a potential profit-taking zone.
From the 4.316 entry, the target represents about 81.8% upside. The target sits above the entry by roughly 3.53. The chart displays a risk/reward ratio of 9.1. That ratio compares the 3.928 stop against the 7.847 target.
The technical case rests on two conditions. The 4.30 region must become support. Then price must confirm a break of 6.00. Each condition depends on buyer participation at those levels. Until both occur, the NEAR price remains in a retest phase.
The post NEAR Price Retests Breakout Zone as Analyst Eyes 7.85 Target appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
ONDO is described by the Ondo Foundation as a governance token for the Ondo DAO and Flux Finance.
Published risk disclosures say ONDO holders have no shareholder rights or claim to company dividends.
Andreou asks for a clear mechanism, enforceable scope and measurable benefit linking products to holders.
Ondo’s Solana tokenized assets passed $500M, and Ondo Stocks reached $1B TVL and $18B in volume.
The ONDO token faces a fresh debate over what its holders actually own as Ondo expands its tokenized finance business. Questions have emerged over how product growth translates into value for token holders.
Meanwhile, tokenized assets tied to Ondo on Solana reportedly crossed $500 million. The two views reflect a wider discussion about the link between platform adoption and governance token demand. Both positions depend on how the token is defined in Ondo’s published documents.
What the ONDO Token Represents
The Ondo Foundation describes ONDO as a governance token for the Ondo DAO and Flux Finance. Holders therefore take part in decisions tied to those two areas. The ONDO token is not presented as a claim on company revenue.
Giannis Andreou raised the question in a post on X. He asked how the success of Ondo’s products reaches someone holding the token.
$ONDO BULLS: WHAT EXACTLY DOES THE TOKEN HOLDER OWN?
Ondo could become an important business in tokenized finance.
Institutions could adopt its products. Assets under management could grow. Distribution could expand across wallets, exchanges and financial platforms.
My… pic.twitter.com/F8tbhdRGjE
— Giannis Andreou (@gandreou007) October 18, 2026
He pointed to the Foundation’s token-sale risk disclosures. Those disclosures state that holding the token provides no shareholder rights. They also exclude rights to company dividends and distributions.
Andreou added that a customer buying a tokenized financial product acquires something different from an ONDO buyer.
The yield or economic rights attached to a product do not automatically belong to the governance token holder. Governance rights and product economics therefore sit in separate categories.
What Would Support a Bullish Case
Andreou acknowledged that governance can carry value. He also noted that future changes could strengthen the token’s role. Market demand may rise as the ecosystem grows. However, he asked that each of those arguments be evaluated separately.
He wants supporters to identify the existing mechanism, its enforceable scope, and the measurable economic benefit for holders.
If a thesis relies on a future governance decision, he asked that the dependency be explained. He also asked who holds the power to deliver that decision.
According to Andreou, a documented link between product success and durable demand for the ONDO token would change his view. He said numbers should show why that link matters. This standard applies to any claim that product growth benefits holders.
Solana Milestone Adds Another Angle
Niels offered a separate view in a post on X. He reported that ONDO crossed $500 million in tokenized assets on Solana. Ondo brought its tokenized stocks to the network only in January. The launch started with more than 200 U.S. stocks and ETFs.
$ONDO crossed $500M in tokenized assets on Solana.
Ondo only brought its tokenized stocks to Solana in January, starting with 200+ U.S. stocks and ETFs.
Since then, it has expanded 24/7 minting and redemption on Solana, while the wider Ondo Stocks platform has grown past $1B…
— Niels (@Web3Niels) October 18, 2026
Since then, Ondo has expanded 24/7 minting and redemption on Solana. Niels added that the wider Ondo Stocks platform has passed $1 billion in TVL. Cumulative volume has reached $18 billion in under eight months.
Niels described the pace of cross-chain expansion as hard to ignore. His post centers on platform scale. Andreou’s post centers on how the ONDO token captures benefits from that scale. Both posts therefore frame the same debate from different sides.
The post What Does the ONDO Token Holder Own? Debate Grows as Solana Assets Pass $500M appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
Bitcoin must hold $81,000, the lower boundary of its daily rising channel, to target $84,000 and $86,500.
A break below $81,000 would shift Bitcoin’s focus to $76,000 as the next downside level to watch.
Ethereum must hold $2,350 on a daily close to target $2,700 and $3,000; a loss puts $2,000 in focus.
XRP needs $1.25 to hold and a sustained close above $1.56 to open the path toward $2; $1 is the downside.
Bitcoin rebound prospects depend on whether buyers defend key support levels, according to crypto analyst Ali Charts.
The analyst named $81,000 for Bitcoin, $2,350 for Ethereum, and $1.25 for XRP as the levels to watch. Each asset has reached a technical test on its daily chart.
Holding these zones could trigger recoveries across all three assets in the near term. A breakdown, however, would shift attention toward lower price targets instead.
Bitcoin Rebound Depends on $81,000 Support
Ali Charts shared the outlook in a thread on X on October 18. For Bitcoin, the analyst pointed to $81,000 as the key level.
This price marks the lower boundary of its daily rising channel. The channel connects a series of higher lows and higher highs on the daily chart.
2/5 For Bitcoin, the level is $81,000, the lower boundary of its daily rising channel.
If buyers defend it, $BTC could rebound toward the channel’s mid-range at $84,000, then to its upper boundary at $86,500.
A break below $81,000 would shift my focus to $76,000. pic.twitter.com/Ev21vQ1GLz
— Ali Charts (@alicharts) October 18, 2026
If buyers defend that support, BTC could rebound toward the channel’s mid-range at $84,000. The $84,000 mark sits near the midpoint of the channel. From there, the next target sits at the upper boundary near $86,500.
However, a break below $81,000 would change the setup. In that case, the analyst would shift focus to $76,000 as the next level.
The $76,000 level would then become the main area for buyers. The Bitcoin rebound case therefore rests on this single channel boundary.
Ethereum Tests $2,350 Support
Ethereum faces a similar test at $2,350. This level acts as the support line of a right-angled ascending broadening pattern. Such patterns form when price swings widen while support rises over time.
A bounce from this zone could lift ETH toward $2,700. A stronger move could extend the rally to $3,000. The $3,000 target would require sustained momentum after the first move. Both targets depend on buyers holding the pattern’s lower boundary.
On the other hand, a daily close below $2,350 would change the outlook. A close below that line would invalidate the support the pattern relies on. In that scenario, the analyst would watch $2,000 instead. Ethereum therefore needs to hold that line on a closing basis.
XRP Watches $1.25 Inverse Head-and-Shoulders
For XRP, Ali Charts is watching $1.25. Holding this level could complete the right shoulder of a potential inverse head-and-shoulders pattern.
The pattern appears on the 3-day chart. This formation often signals a potential trend reversal when the price breaks above its neckline.
The rebound would still need confirmation, though. A sustained close above $1.56 could open the path toward $2. The $1.56 level acts as the resistance XRP must clear first. Such a move would confirm the setup on the higher timeframe.
Failure to hold $1.25 would change the picture. In that event, $1 becomes the downside level to watch. That level would mark a drop of roughly 20% from the $1.25 support. All three setups, including the Bitcoin rebound case, depend on support holding in the coming sessions.
The post Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP Reach Critical Support Zones: Here Are the Levels to Watch appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
Solana’s bubble map turned heating for the first time after roughly six months of cooling volume.
About half a dozen red bubbles printed as SOL fell from roughly $112 to $103, per the volume chart.
The June low near $62 printed neutral bubbles, so that bottom did not show a volume climax.
A $100 break with ongoing heating would confirm the decline, while fading volume points to a pullback.
Solana spot volume has flipped to a heating state for the first time in this window, and the move is happening while price falls.
A bubble map of daily spot volume shows the first red bubbles after roughly six months of cooling readings. SOL has dropped from about $120 in early October to near $103.
The chart colors each day’s volume against its own baseline. Heating means volume is running above that baseline, though color does not show direction.
Six Months of Cooling Volume
From December through early June, nearly every bubble on the chart was green. Green marks cooling volume against the baseline.
The chart plots each day’s spot volume state on price. During that stretch, SOL slid from about $150 to the low $80s.
Source: Cryptoquant
Price drifted lower without any rise in volume. No spike in activity appeared along the way. That pattern matches a quiet bleed rather than a panic. Solana spot volume stayed muted while participation faded, and the decline continued.
The June low near $62 did not follow that script. Bubbles at that level turned neutral instead of heating. As a result, the bottom did not print a volume climax. Neutral bubbles then held through the recovery to roughly $120 in early October.
First Red Bubbles Appear as Price Falls
The first red bubbles on this chart have now appeared. About half a dozen printed as SOL fell from roughly $112 to $103. Until then, no heating readings had shown up in the window.
Color only shows that volume is running hotter than baseline. It does not show direction. Neutral and cooling bubbles dominated earlier readings on the chart. However, heating volume on falling price points to active selling rather than drift.
This tape differs from the one that dominated the first half of the year. Earlier, price declined while volume cooled. Now, Solana spot volume is expanding as price moves lower.
The $100 Level Frames the Next Move
Analyst Iko | Web3 shared a related view in a post on X. According to the post, SOL ran toward $120 but now trades near $103. The analyst described $100 as the key zone to watch.
Holding that level could give buyers another shot at recovery. Losing it could allow sellers to take control. The post also asked whether buyers can defend their gains after the rally.
$SOL bulls have a decision to make.
Solana ran toward $120, but now the price is back near $103.
Here’s the level that matters most
→ $100 is the key zone to watch.
→ Hold it, and buyers may get another shot at recovery.
→ Lose it, and sellers could take control.
The… pic.twitter.com/majLJUzIXR
— Iko | Web3 (@IkoWEB3) October 18, 2026
The Solana spot volume chart offers a way to track how that level plays out. If bubbles return to neutral or cooling while price holds near $100, selling is fading. In that case, the move would read as a pullback.
The alternative scenario looks different. If heating persists and $100 breaks, volume confirms the decline. The overheating state is struck through in the legend, so the chart does not show it.
A move into that state would be the stress signal. Until one of those outcomes plays out, the $100 area remains the level to watch.
The post Solana Spot Volume Flips to “Heating” or the First Time as SOL Price Falls appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
The Ethereum gas limit on Hoodi is scheduled to rise from 60 million to 200 million when Glamsterdam activates on October 26, the Foundation said.
The Ethereum Foundation has not set a mainnet activation date; Hoodi is the next scheduled public test network after Sepolia for Glamsterdam.
Glamsterdam adds enshrined proposer-builder separation, block-level access lists, and gas repricing that reflects execution costs and state growth.
A higher block gas limit creates room for more computation in each block, but it does not guarantee faster confirmations or higher transaction rates.
The Glamsterdam upgrade will raise the Ethereum gas limit on Hoodi to 200 million on October 26. The planned setting expands the computation each block can hold, giving developers another chance to examine Ethereum’s layer-one capacity. The Foundation has not set a mainnet launch date or activation schedule.
The increase could leave room for more transactions or complex contract calls, depending on demand and gas use. A larger gas target, however, does not translate directly into a fixed transactions-per-second figure. Client teams must assess execution behavior and node requirements under load before weighing results against a potential mainnet deployment plan.
Ethereum Gas Limit Moves to 200 Million on Hoodi Testnet
The Ethereum gas limit rise takes Hoodi from 60 million to 200 million, about 3.3x its former level. The Ethereum Foundation’s Hoodi announcement places that change at the same fork epoch as Glamsterdam. Sepolia activated the upgrade on October 6, and now the Hoodi testnet follows. Hoodi’s result will help developers evaluate client behavior under the revised rules.
Hoodi is the final testnet before mainnet.
With Glamsterdam going live soon, Ethereum will 3.3x its gas limit, from 60M to 200M.
From there, 300M feels like a realistic next step. https://t.co/rt9ebj6wkU
— Toni Wahrstätter ⟠ (@nero_eth) October 18, 2026
The Ethereum gas limit sets a ceiling on computation each block can contain. Every transaction uses gas based on the work it requires. A higher cap could leave room for more transactions or more complex contract activity when demand exists. It does not promise faster confirmations or a fixed transactions-per-second figure. Actual throughput also depends on block demand, transaction size, and how quickly nodes propagate and process blocks. The 200 million figure describes the Ethereum gas limit ceiling, not guaranteed network activity.
The higher Ethereum gas limit may add pressure to node hardware, storage, and bandwidth. The Glamsterdam upgrade includes changes intended to manage those demands. Block-level access lists record accounts and storage locations accessed during a block. That record could help clients read state and validate transactions in parallel.
Gas repricing will also adjust costs to better reflect execution and long-term state growth. Developers will watch whether these changes let nodes handle larger blocks reliably. Researcher Toni Wahrstätter has discussed 300 million gas as a possible longer-term target, not a confirmed Glamsterdam setting.
Glamsterdam Upgrade Pairs Capacity Gains with Node Testing
The Ethereum Foundation identifies enshrined proposer-builder separation and block-level access lists as core parts of the Glamsterdam upgrade. Under ePBS, the protocol separates the validator proposing a block from the builder assembling its execution payload. The change formalizes that handoff within Ethereum and gives validators more time to check execution data.
Access lists track which accounts and storage locations transactions touch across a block. This structure could let clients process state reads and validation work in parallel. That could support higher layer-one capacity while keeping validation practical. The Ethereum gas limit also aligns with Glamsterdam’s broader processing and validation changes.
The Hoodi testnet is the next scheduled public network after Sepolia for this fork. Wahrstätter has described it as the last testnet step before a possible mainnet launch. Client teams will review test results before establishing the next schedule. Node operators must also install compatible execution and consensus clients before Hoodi’s activation.
The Sepolia client guidance showed that some validator clients defaulted to a 60 million gas target after the fork. Those operators needed an explicit setting to propose blocks with 200 million gas. The Hoodi announcement also tells validators to check their gas-target settings.
Ethereum’s next planned fork after Glamsterdam is Hegotá, expected in 2027. Wahrstätter said developers were considering 23 proposals, including FOCIL and Frame Transactions, though the final package remained undecided.
Buterin has described Hegotá as a possible last fork using conventional cryptography. He pointed to future work on advanced cryptography, formal verification, consensus, and quantum resistance. PeerDAS has also been discussed as a way for nodes to verify data availability without downloading every block.
The post Ethereum Gas Limit Rises as Glamsterdam Moves to Hoodi Testnet appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
Binance altcoins below their 200-dma fell from 81% to under 10% between late August and early October.
More than $814 billion flowed into altcoins during the two-month rally that lifted breadth above 90%.
Now 48.4% of Binance altcoins sit below their 200-dma, leaving breadth near 52% after the reversal.
Over 15 days, more than $134 billion left altcoins, with quick profit-taking cited as the likely driver.
Altseason is losing momentum as altcoin breadth falls from above 90% to roughly 52%. Between late August and early October, altcoins went through a brief period of strength.
Since then, the trend has weakened across the market. Data from Darkfost, an on-chain analyst, shows that 48.4% of Binance altcoins now trade below their 200-day moving average. Capital has also started leaving the sector, and the outflow is likely driven largely by quick profit-taking.
Altseason Peak Measured by Altcoin Breadth
The share of altcoins trading above their 200-day moving average is a key indicator of favorable periods. This technical level helps separate confirmed uptrends from weak price action. Darkfost used it to track the recent altseason on Binance.
From late August to early October, the share of Binance altcoins below their 200-dma fell sharply. It dropped from 81% to under 10%. As a result, nine out of ten listed altcoins had entered a confirmed uptrend. Breadth therefore stood above 90% at the peak.
The Altseason Is cooling fast as Altcoin breadth drops from over 90% to around 52%
Between late August and early October, altcoins went through a brief altseason, which is now starting to fade.
To measure these favorable periods, the number of altcoins trading above their… pic.twitter.com/Er6yvb4evn
— Darkfost (@Darkfost_Coc) October 18, 2026
That move came with heavy capital inflows. More than $814 billion entered altcoins as a whole over the same period. Together, the breadth reading and the inflow data describe the strength of that phase.
Altseason Momentum Fades as Outflows Begin
Momentum has faded since the peak. Currently, 48.4% of Binance altcoins have fallen back below their 200-dma. Consequently, the trend has reversed for nearly one altcoin out of two on the platform. Breadth now sits at around 52%.
Capital flows have changed direction as well. Over the last 15 days, more than $134 billion has left altcoins. According to Darkfost, the outflow is likely driven in large part by quick profit-taking. This marks a clear shift from the inflows seen earlier in the period.
Altcoins remain a sector where dynamics change very quickly. Investor sentiment also shifts fast in both directions. As a result, the altseason that built over two months has cooled in a short time.
Analyst Watch for a Breakout
Market participants are still watching the charts. Ece Vortex posted on X that altcoins have spent months under pressure.
The post adds that the chart now shows early signs of a breakout. It also drew attention to the current chart structure.
Altseason cooking?
Altcoins have spent months getting humbled
Now the chart is showing signs of a breakout
If resistance flips into support, things could get interesting real quick imo
Patience gonna pays off soon fams
Chasing pumps pays someone else pic.twitter.com/yzw8cwdtmX
— Ece Vortex (@EceVortex) October 18, 2026
According to the tweet, the setup depends on resistance flipping into support. If that happens, conditions could become interesting quickly. The author also advised patience and warned that chasing pumps benefits other traders.
Darkfost also pointed to a historical pattern. Building an appropriate exposure becomes worthwhile when interest in altcoins and their performance are at their lowest. The analyst therefore treats low-attention phases as the moment to consider an allocation.
The post Altseason Weakens: Nearly Half of Binance Altcoins Fall Below 200-Day Average appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
Binance altcoin market breadth fell from above 90% in early October to 51.6% by October 18, Darkfost said.
In late August, 81% of tracked altcoins traded below their 200-day averages, before the rally reversed.
Darkfost reported a $134 billion altcoin retreat in 15 days but did not clarify whether it was net outflows.
CoinMarketCap’s Altcoin Season Index stood at 54, below the 75 threshold, as Bitcoin dominance reached 60.1%.
The altcoin market’s strongest breadth recovery in months has weakened sharply, raising questions about whether its latest rally can still qualify as a sustained altcoin season. CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost reported on October 18 that just 51.6% of tracked Binance altcoins remained above their 200-day moving averages. That share exceeded 90% in early October, meaning broad participation has nearly halved within weeks.
The Altseason Is cooling fast as Altcoin breadth drops from over 90% to around 52%
Between late August and early October, altcoins went through a brief altseason, which is now starting to fade.
To measure these favorable periods, the number of altcoins trading above their… pic.twitter.com/Er6yvb4evn
— Darkfost (@Darkfost_Coc) October 18, 2026
The shift matters because the 200-day average measures longer-term price direction. Therefore, when fewer assets trade above it, gains become less widespread, even if individual cryptocurrencies remain resilient. This benchmark captures participation across many assets, rather than tracking one token’s price alone.
Binance Altcoin Breadth Falls From Over 90% to 51.6%
The reversal followed a rapid improvement beginning in late August, when 81% of tracked assets traded below their 200-day averages. By September 19, roughly 70% had climbed above that benchmark, their strongest breadth reading since October 2025.
Meanwhile, altcoin market capitalization excluding Ethereum surpassed $800 billion. By September 28, the share above the moving average had reached 87%, before exceeding 90% in early October. Yet warning signs emerged before the downturn.
Darkfost flagged rising exchange deposits and weakening momentum, with weekly deposit transactions topping 22,700 on Binance and 8,300 on Coinbase. Exchange deposits can precede sales, although they do not prove selling occurred. The latest figures show 48.4% below the benchmark, compared with fewer than 10% earlier in October.
$134B Altcoin Retreat Deepens Concerns as Season Index Hits 54
Darkfost estimated that more than $814 billion entered the altcoin market during the preceding two-month upswing. He also reported over $134 billion leaving the sector across the latest 15 days. However, those amounts were described as capital movements without distinguishing actual net inflows from changes in market capitalization.
The distinction matters as falling valuations do not necessarily indicate equivalent withdrawals. Other market measures also fall short of confirming a full altcoin season. At press time, CoinMarketCap’s Altcoin Season Index stood near 54, below its 75-point confirmation threshold.
Source: CoinMarketCap
Meanwhile, Bitcoin dominance remained around 60.1%, while its price hovered near $81,500. BlockchainCenter’s separate index likewise sat below the level associated with sustained altcoin outperformance. Its reading offered another check on the rally’s reach beyond individual price gains.
Taken together, the readings establish weaker market participation, not a definitive end to the cycle. A renewed breadth recovery would require more assets to regain their long-term averages.
The post Is Altcoin Season Ending? Binance Market Breadth Collapses From 90% to 52% appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
Ledger wallet theft estimates vary: Galaxy Research counted 91 million dollars across five networks, while trackers including BNB Chain put the total at 93 million to 95 million dollars; Ledger has not confirmed its own figure.
Karpelès cited Ledger’s March guide, but the current page lists a September update and does not reveal when specific warnings or tampering images were added.
Ledger’s Genuine Check verifies the Secure Element, yet its documentation says it may not detect added hardware if the original security chip remains intact.
On October 9, Ledger asked CryptoBilis to pause sales and shipments. It told recent buyers not to initialize unused wallets and advised those who had set them up to transfer assets to a wallet with a fresh recovery phrase.
The Ledger wallet theft dispute escalated publicly on October 17. Ledger CEO Pascal Gauthier challenged former Mt. Gox chief Mark Karpelès over warnings about modified hardware wallets. The exchange followed reports of losses involving devices sold through CryptoBilis, a Southeast Asian reseller. Investigators found unauthorized electronics inside at least one device, reportedly designed to capture recovery phrases during setup.
Karpelès said Ledger had discussed tampering in a March security guide, but questioned whether customers received a clear warning. Gauthier defended the company’s work and urged him to distinguish evidence from speculation. That puts Ledger wallet theft estimates and warnings under scrutiny.
Ledger Wallet Theft Dispute Puts Earlier Warnings Under Scrutiny
Karpelès corrected his earlier claim that Ledger had never discussed physical implants. He cited “Best Practices To Securely Buy Your Ledger Signer”, first published March 6, 2026. Ledger lists September 18 as its latest update.
Correction: I said @Ledger didn't talk about the implant situation at all despite knowing about it – they did publish an academy topic in March 2026 that talks about it and recommends buying direct or from Authorized Resellers.https://t.co/UUNH1H2L3D pic.twitter.com/UNrxyLnsmd
— Mark Karpelès (@MagicalTux) October 17, 2026
The guide covers counterfeit wallets, preset recovery phrases, and genuine devices modified after leaving the factory. It says added components may collect information shown during setup. The current page includes images of altered circuit boards.
Karpelès argued the examples showed Ledger knew about sophisticated implants before customers reported CryptoBilis devices. He said a prominent warning could have prevented losses above 90 million dollars, but that claim remains unproven.
Because Ledger updated the page in September, it does not show when each image or warning appeared. The current record alone cannot establish what Ledger knew about specific CryptoBilis devices in March.
Mt. Gox collapsed in 2014 after major Bitcoin losses, leaving creditors in a long recovery process. Gauthier invoked that failure; Karpelès said it shaped his security expectations. Their exchange yielded no new evidence about who modified devices or when.
CryptoBilis Investigation Shows the Limits of Device Authentication
Ledger’s Genuine Check verifies the Secure Element, a chip that handles sensitive wallet operations. During setup, official software requests a response signed with the chip’s manufacturing identity.
It confirms the chip is authentic, but cannot inspect every component. Ledger says added hardware may go undetected when the original chip remains intact.
That limitation matters in the Ledger wallet theft investigation. Investigators reportedly found an implant near a CryptoBilis device screen. It could capture the 24-word phrase shown during setup while leaving the original chip and security functions in place.
Anyone with a complete recovery phrase may access associated funds without the original device. The implant reportedly sent captured words through a cellular connection.
Ledger said the discovery did not show compromise of its chip, operating system, or transaction signing. The Ledger wallet theft case involved physical interference during distribution, exposing a gap between chip authentication and device integrity.
Ledger opened an investigation after customer complaints. On October 9, it asked CryptoBilis to pause sales and shipments. Ledger told customers who bought devices in the prior 90 days not to initialize unused wallets. Ledger advised customers who had initialized devices to move assets to a new wallet with a fresh recovery phrase.
Galaxy Research’s Ledger wallet theft estimate was 91 million dollars across five networks on October 16. Trackers that included BNB Chain put the figure at 93 million to 95 million. Ledger has not confirmed its total. The gap likely reflects scope. Neither the on-chain counts nor the guide establishes how much a warning could have prevented.
Ledger’s guidance says authorized sales and a passing check cannot prove nobody physically modified a wallet. Buyers should inspect devices and complete authentication through official software before setup begins.
Ledger advises buyers to purchase directly from the company or its authorized sellers. Authorized resellers cannot return devices to inventory for resale. A tampered wallet report in Germany prompted retailers to review distribution practices as the broader inquiry continues.
The post Ledger CEO and Mt. Gox Boss Clash Over Wallet Theft Warnings appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
Cysic halted its bridge after an attacker minted 10 million CYS tokens without backing on BNB Smart Chain.
Cysic blacklisted the wallet about 76 minutes later, restricting 2.8 million CYS, or 28% of the mint.
Initial on-chain reports link sales of 7.2 million CYS to 306.6 ETH worth roughly $727,000 on Ethereum.
The 10 million unauthorized tokens equaled 1% of total supply, while mainnet operations remained unaffected.
Cysic suspended its cross-chain bridge after an attacker created 10 million unauthorized CYS tokens on BNB Smart Chain and moved reported proceeds to Ethereum. The October 17 breach exposed faulty authentication of bridge messages authorizing token issuance.
The mint occurred at 12:31:38 UTC, according to its October 18 incident report. Investigators traced the breach to unauthorized access to a bridge database. The attacker then exploited a message-processing vulnerability to submit fraudulent mint instructions without a corresponding asset transfer.
On-chain activity cited in initial reporting linked the incident to sales of 7.2 million tokens and approximately 306.6 ETH received on Ethereum. Those proceeds were valued near $727,000, although the foundation has not verified the complete transaction trail or final losses.
How Hacker Minted 10M CYS Before Cysic Suspended Its Bridge
Cross-chain bridges use authenticated messages to recognize transfers between blockchains and release matching assets. In this case, fraudulent instructions caused the system to mint tokens that lacked a legitimate transfer backing them. The breach therefore centered on bridge message validation, rather than a breakdown in the underlying network’s consensus.
Cysic blacklisted the receiving address at 13:47:52 UTC, about 76 minutes after the mint. By that point, 2.8 million tokens remained in the blocked wallet. That was 28% of the issuance; the remaining 7.2 million, or 72%, had moved out. The project’s cross-chain bridge was suspended to prevent further unauthorized activity.
An external security firm is now examining bridge messages, permissions and asset records, while investigators trace affected addresses. The bridge remains closed without a reopening date, pending security review and validation.
Unauthorized 10M CYS Mint Equals 1% of Supply as Probe Continues
The scale of the issuance matters beyond the reported transfer proceeds. Project tokenomics document a total supply of 1 billion tokens, used for governance, computing services and network incentives. The 10 million unauthorized units equaled 1% of that stated supply, raising questions about unrecovered circulation.
However, the amount transferred to Ethereum should not be treated as the confirmed financial loss. Although initial tracking attributed 306.6 ETH to the attacker, the foundation has yet to establish how much was ultimately retained. Similarly, the 2.8 million restricted tokens are a verified containment measure, not evidence of recovery.
Mainnet consensus, block production and transaction execution continued normally, and existing assets in users’ wallets were unaffected. Users have also been warned against fake compensation links, recovery pitches and requests for private keys. A follow-up report is expected to address verified losses, fund tracing and remediation.
The post Cysic Suspends Bridge After Hacker Mints 10M CYS, Moves $727K to Ethereum appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
Exchange reserves rose from about 2.67 million BTC to 2.68 million BTC but remain low versus January.
Spot demand neared zero before turning negative, while perpetual futures demand stayed positive.
Holders of 100–1,000 BTC remain net accumulators, while the over-10,000 BTC cohort is still negative.
A durable recovery needs positive spot demand, buyers absorbing exchange inflows, and wider accumulation.
Bitcoin recovery remains uneven, according to updated CryptoQuant charts reviewed in a new XWIN Japan column. Exchange reserves, spot demand, and whale behavior show mixed signals as the U.S. midterms approach.
Low reserves, whale accumulation, and improving estimated demand still support a possible base. However, the latest data shows that buying strength is not yet consistent across the market. The column examines three charts that explain where support holds and where it weakens.
Exchange Reserves Edge Higher
Exchange reserves measure the amount of BTC held on trading platforms. They have risen from roughly 2.67 million BTC in early October to around 2.68 million BTC. Despite the increase, reserves remain low compared with January. Low reserves do not mean supply keeps shrinking.
Source: Cryptoquant
Transfers may reflect custody changes rather than selling. Therefore, rising reserves alone do not prove that holders are selling.
The increase is modest, and it comes from a low base. The supports from the earlier column remain, yet the Bitcoin recovery is uneven.
The earlier column, published six days ago, listed low reserves among the signs of base building. That earlier analysis centered on Bitcoin base building ahead of the U.S. midterms.
A durable Bitcoin recovery now requires buyers to absorb BTC that returns to exchanges. Reserves are rising, so that condition matters more.
Spot Demand Loses Momentum
The 30-day demand chart shows spot demand approaching zero before turning negative again. Spot demand reflects direct BTC purchases, while perpetual futures involve derivatives.
Meanwhile, positive perpetual futures demand supports total demand. Spot buying therefore remains weaker than futures activity.
Source: Cryptoquant
The earlier column cited improving estimated demand. This new breakdown differs from the Apparent Demand metric discussed previously. Their values are not directly comparable, so the readings should be viewed separately.
Sustained positive spot demand is one of three conditions for a durable Bitcoin recovery. Without it, futures demand carries the total figure. Positive spot readings would show buyers acting directly in the market.
Whale Cohorts Show Mixed Behavior
Holders of 100–1,000 BTC remain net accumulators over 60 days. Their buying sits below the late-September peak despite a modest rebound. The cohort has kept buying through the past two months.
Net holding declines among the 1,000–10,000 BTC cohort have narrowed toward zero. Meanwhile, the cohort above 10,000 BTC remains negative.
Source: Cryptoquant
Accumulation is therefore not broad-based across holder groups. A durable recovery also needs accumulation to spread more widely.
These rolling figures include pre-October activity and can reflect transfers between cohorts. Conditions that could support a base still exist. Expectations around the midterms and monetary policy must translate into actual buying.
The key is whether rallies gain a growing, lasting base of buyers. Until then, the Bitcoin recovery depends on whether buying broadens beyond a single holder group.
The post Bitcoin Recovery Stays Uneven as Spot Demand Weakens and Exchange Reserves Rise appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
Michael Saylor’s October 18 post hinted at another Strategy Bitcoin buy but confirmed no transaction.
Strategy acquired 250 BTC for $21.5 million, taking its holdings to 848,250 coins as of October 11, 2026.
Strategy reported a $4.88 billion reserve and $640.5 million in separate USD Cash as of October 11, 2026.
Bitcoin traded near $81,616 on October 18 as its 14-day RSI stood at 46.5, indicating neutral momentum.
Michael Saylor renewed attention on corporate cryptocurrency buying Sunday, October 18, after signaling that Strategy could add to its substantial Bitcoin holdings. “We found room for more orange,” the executive chairman posted on X, accompanying his message with an updated acquisition chart.
We found room for more orange. pic.twitter.com/XAgiEZbXgO
— Michael Saylor (@saylor) October 18, 2026
The comment, however, offered no purchase figure or confirmation that a transaction had occurred. The chart listed approximately 848,250 BTC, valued at $69.45 billion, with an average acquisition cost of $75,444 per coin.
Separately, a momentum indicator drew attention to Bitcoin’s price resilience. That technical signal measures market behavior rather than corporate demand, and does not establish that an advance is underway.
Michael Saylor Hints at New Strategy Buy After $21.5M Purchase
A similar October 11 post preceded an October 12 acquisition disclosure. However, that pattern does not establish whether a new purchase occurred. The company reported buying 250 coins for approximately $21.5 million between October 5 and 11, at an average price of $86,194.
That brought total holdings to 848,250 coins, representing approximately 4.04% of the asset’s fixed 21 million supply. Common-stock sales funded $21 million of the purchase, while cash covered the remaining $500,000.
The funding mix illustrates how share issuance, rather than cash alone, supported that acquisition. Meanwhile, it spent $192.4 million repurchasing STRC preferred shares. On October 11, it reported a $4.88 billion reserve for dividend and interest obligations, plus $640.5 million in separate USD Cash.
The latter could support acquisitions and other corporate activities, although neither balance establishes the scale of any future purchase. Meanwhile, attention turns to a potential October 19 announcement, with Saylor yet to confirm another transaction.
Bitcoin RSI Near 46.5 as Traders Watch $80,000 Support
Alongside the corporate buying discussion, analyst OxSweep highlighted a contrast between recent price behavior and the Relative Strength Index on October 18. The analyst compared the latest RSI decline with a May episode, when weakening momentum accompanied a sharper market drop.
$BTC current structure is very different than the one that happened in May
Back then the RSI reset and the price crashed
Right now the RSI reset is happening but the price is holding well
This is what happens when an asset enters a bull run pic.twitter.com/jksAcjrSsT
— Sweep (@0xSweep) October 18, 2026
This time, prices held comparatively higher levels despite the indicator’s retreat. That distinction underpinned the analyst’s bullish interpretation, rather than confirming that another advance had begun. RSI measures price-change speed and magnitude on a scale of zero to 100.
Fidelity’s technical guide identifies the 40–50 range as potential momentum support during established uptrends. Still, an October 18 snapshot showed the asset near $81,616, with its 14-day RSI around 46.5. That reading indicates neutral momentum, not a confirmed breakout.
Bitcoin’s price support near $80,000–$81,000 and a recovery toward $84,000 remain the immediate technical reference points. A subsequent regulatory disclosure would determine whether the latest orange-themed post reflected a purchase; price action would then provide the separate test of bullish momentum.
The post Bitcoin Bull Run Ahead? Michael Saylor Teases Another Strategy BTC Purchase appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
Binance sell order at 21:21 UTC triggered liquidations that reached Hyperliquid-linked stock contracts
Bullish positions made up about $38M of the $51.6M liquidated between 21:22 and 21:32 UTC on Saturday
SOXL saw roughly $12.7M in liquidations, while SanDisk and SK Hynix each recorded about $10.8M
Semiconductors had logged eight straight losing days, their worst streak since 2008, before the drop
A semiconductor flash crash wiped out $51.6 million in leveraged positions during weekend trading on crypto platforms. A large sell order on Binance at 21:21 UTC on Saturday triggered the liquidations.
The wave spread to venues such as Hyperliquid and hit contracts tied to SOXL, SanDisk, and SK Hynix. Thin liquidity worsened the drop, since US stock markets were closed. Prices rebounded quickly afterward, and the wider crypto markets held steady.
Binance Sell Order Triggers Liquidations Across Venues
Analyst AN Crypto described the semiconductor flash crash in a post on X. The post states that liquidations occurred between 21:22 and 21:32 UTC on Saturday. Positions tied to chip stocks and semiconductor funds were closed by force during that ten-minute window.
The selling began on Binance. Within seconds, it reached stock contracts linked to Hyperliquid. These contracts stay open even when US exchanges are shut.
$52 MILLION WIPED OUT IN JUST 10 MINUTES — WHILE WALL STREET WAS CLOSED.
Crypto exchanges are becoming a 24/7 casino for stock traders. This weekend, leveraged bets on semiconductor stocks suffered a massive liquidation wave, even though the underlying U.S. stock market wasn’t… pic.twitter.com/j4mTHAvzpk
— AN Crypto (@ANCrypto_) October 18, 2026
Thin weekend liquidity left few buy orders to absorb the large sell order. The sequence showed how quickly pressure can move across trading venues.
A liquidation occurs when an exchange closes a leveraged position after the trader’s margin falls too low. Bullish traders took the largest share of the losses. About $38 million came from positions betting on higher prices. The rest came from traders betting on lower prices.
SOXL, SanDisk, and SK Hynix Lead the Losses
SOXL contracts recorded the biggest losses, with about $12.7 million liquidated. SanDisk and SK Hynix contracts followed, each seeing around $10.8 million in liquidations.
The liquidations came after a rough stretch for the semiconductor sector in regular trading. Chips had logged eight straight losing days, their worst streak since 2008.
Pullbacks in AI spending accompanied that decline. The streak left the sector under pressure before the weekend session began.
The semiconductor flash crash on crypto venues followed this run of losses. Together, the three contract groups accounted for about $34.3 million of the total. Other positions made up the remaining balance.
Lack of Live Stock Prices Complicates Weekend Trading
AN Crypto pointed to the absence of an opening bell as the central issue. With Wall Street closed, these contracts had no real-time share prices to anchor them. Traders were effectively reacting to each other, and leverage amplified the move.
US markets reopen on Monday. Actual share prices will then show how far weekend contract prices drifted from the underlying stocks. Until then, moves from the semiconductor flash crash cannot be compared with live stock data.
Tokenized stock exposure and perpetual contracts now allow markets to trade around the clock. Perpetual contracts have no expiry date, so traders can hold them while margin requirements are met.
However, constant access does not guarantee reliable price discovery or deep liquidity. Longer trading hours offer more opportunity, but they also create more ways for traders to face liquidation.
The post Semiconductor Flash Crash Wipes Out $52M in Weekend Crypto Bets appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
Justin Sun sold 80%–90% of his Ethereum near $3,600–$4,000 after identifying a fragile double-top pattern.
He has not repurchased the Ethereum sold, although he retained a smaller core position and kept Bitcoin.
Following the sale, Sun shifted capital into U.S. stocks, identifying Nvidia and Nasdaq-100 exposure.
Ethereum closed near $2,402 on October 17, about 33%–40% below Sun’s reported $3,600–$4,000 exit range.
TRON founder Justin Sun reduced his once-dominant Ethereum position by roughly 80%–90% as the cryptocurrency approached $4,000, then redirected substantial capital into American stocks. In an October 16 interview with Jin Ming, Sun said he sold between $3,600 and $4,000 and has not repurchased those tokens.
Instead, he kept a smaller Ethereum stake while leaving his Bitcoin holdings intact. Before that decision, Ethereum had been his largest cryptocurrency holding, making the reduction his most consequential disclosed digital-asset shift. The disclosure revealed a divide between assets he considered vulnerable to a reversal and investments he wanted to retain longer term.
Nvidia and Nasdaq-100 exposure became central to that shift. However, Sun provided no token volumes, proceeds, or precise execution dates, leaving the transactions independently unverified. He described the move as a response to market structure rather than a withdrawal from decentralized finance.
Double-Top Fears Behind Justin Sun’s 80%–90% ETH Sale Near $4,000
Sun linked the sale to a double-top formation he perceived after Ethereum approached $4,800, fell back, and staged another advance. That pattern describes two attempts to sustain higher prices, although it cannot independently establish a reversal.
Justin Sun: Sold 80–90% of ETH at $3,600–$4,000, Then Bought Heavily Into US Stocks
On October 16, 2026, Justin Sun @justinsuntron said in an interview with William Joy that he had sold 80–90% of his ETH position at around $3,600–$4,000, keeping only a core holding and had not… pic.twitter.com/yNSBZIRFHr
— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) October 18, 2026
He said exchange-traded fund demand supported the second rally, citing investor Tom Lee when describing its buying momentum. Rather than rely on continued support, he considered the rebound fragile and reduced his exposure.
The market subsequently weakened. Ethereum reached approximately $4,950 in August 2025 and approached $4,755 again that October. By October 17, 2026, it closed near $2,402, roughly 33%–40% below Sun’s reported selling range.
Even so, the exit did not end his Ethereum involvement. He described the network as his preferred venue for large-scale decentralized finance operations because of its deeper liquidity. The distinction separates trading an asset from using its underlying blockchain.
Nvidia and Nasdaq-100 Investments Followed the ETH Reduction
After trimming ETH, Sun moved funds into U.S. equities, expecting investor attention to concentrate on American stocks. He identified Nvidia as a major holding and reported significant Nasdaq-100 exposure, without detailing allocations or purchase prices.
His position did not imply an unqualified bullish view of technology shares. Sun said he had become slightly bearish on the Nasdaq over the medium term, citing crowded AI investments and borrowing costs. That caution coincided with the Nasdaq Composite’s 2.1% decline on October 16. The index lost approximately 4.5% that week as investors questioned heavy artificial intelligence infrastructure spending.
Bitcoin remained a separate holding. Sun said he retained it throughout the previous year while monitoring potential cryptographic threats from artificial intelligence and quantum computing. He also described isolating Bitcoin in previously unused cold-storage addresses as a precaution, without predicting when such threats might materialize.
The post Justin Sun Reveals Why He Sold 90% of His ETH Near $4,000 and Pivoted to Nvidia appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
Yuga Labs launches Mudwater, a physical and digital trading card collection built around BAYC artwork.
BAYC holders qualify for 10 packs per NFT, while MAYC holders receive two packs per NFT.
Mudwater features 120 artworks, rare cracked-ice editions, and eight serialized one-of-one cards.
The project allocates 2.5% of card trading volume to APE purchases distributed among collectors.
Yuga Labs has launched Mudwater, a physical and digital trading card collection on Solana, with claims open to Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) and Mutant Ape Yacht Club (MAYC) holders. The collection features 120 artworks, including foil, serialized, and rare cracked-ice editions.
Each BAYC NFT qualifies its holder for 10 packs, while each MAYC NFT provides two packs. Every pack contains 10 cards, and the project has limited production to 10,000 boxes.
Mudwater also directs 2.5% of card trading volume toward APE token purchases, which collectors receive proportionally based on their holdings.
How Yuga Labs’ Mudwater Trading Cards Work on Solana
According to announcements from Yuga Labs and Bored Ape Yacht Club on X, Mudwater connects physical collectibles with blockchain-based ownership. The collection brings BAYC artwork into a trading card format while using Solana to support its digital component.
Eligible holders can claim packs through airdropped Totems, which enable access to the collection. BAYC holders qualify for 10 packs per NFT, while MAYC holders receive two packs per NFT.
Each pack contains 10 cards, giving eligible collectors different allocations based on their NFT holdings.
Mudwater is live.
A new physical and digital BAYC collection on Solana, claimable now by all Bored Apes and Mutant Apes.
Claim: https://t.co/MSq17dNmS1 https://t.co/bCvbnmFMsx
— Yuga Labs (@yugalabs) October 17, 2026
The collection includes 120 artworks alongside foil, serialized, and cracked-ice editions. Eight cards are designated as serialized cracked-ice 1/1s, making each a unique edition within the collection.
Yuga Labs also confirmed that the cards are printed by OCAP Games using its orange core paper. This physical component gives collectors tangible items alongside the collection’s blockchain-based assets.
The collection extends the BAYC ecosystem beyond its original NFT format. Rather than limiting ownership to digital profile pictures, Mudwater introduces physical cards that collectors can trade alongside their associated digital assets.
How Mudwater’s 2.5% APE Token Mechanism Works
Mudwater’s token mechanism links secondary-market trading activity to APE purchases. According to the Bored Ape Yacht Club, 2.5% of card trading volume goes toward buying APE tokens.
Those tokens are then distributed among collectors in proportion to their holdings of the Mudwater collection. This creates a connection between card ownership and the project’s trading activity.
For example, a collector holding a larger share of the collection could receive a proportionally larger allocation of the purchased APE tokens. Actual distributions depend on the mechanism’s terms and the volume generated through eligible trades.
The arrangement differs from a conventional collectible market, where resale activity does not automatically provide token distributions to holders. Mudwater instead incorporates a token-based reward mechanism into its trading model.
Totems, packs, and cards are available to trade on OpenSea, according to the supplied announcement. However, the available information does not establish how much trading volume the collection will generate or how large future APE distributions might become.
For NFT collectors and APE holders, the launch introduces another way to participate in the BAYC ecosystem. Its central proposition combines physical collecting, Solana-based digital assets, and trading-linked APE distributions, with actual rewards dependent on market activity.
The post Yuga Labs Launches Mudwater on Solana With 2.5% APE Rewards appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
OpenCode says the breach affected approximately 1.4% of Console users with external providers linked.
Exposed credentials may include API keys for OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google.
The company identified a large-scale distillation attack but has not disclosed full technical details.
Affected users should revoke keys, replace credentials, update applications, and review recent API usage.
OpenCode disclosed a security breach that exposed third-party API keys belonging to approximately 1.4% of its Console users. The incident involved unauthorized access to a legacy system that the company was preparing to decommission.
Exposed credentials may have included keys for OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, according to OpenCode’s customer notification. The company said attackers carried out a large-scale distillation attack, although it has not released further technical details.
Affected users were instructed to revoke their keys, replace them, and check for unexpected usage and charges.
The disclosure raises concerns about credential security across AI development tools. Users who connect external providers through third-party platforms may face financial risks when attackers obtain their credentials.
How the OpenCode Security Breach Exposed API Keys
OpenCode announced the incident on X, confirming that unauthorized access affected a subset of Console users with external providers linked. The company said it notified all identified affected users by email on the morning following the breach.
The customer notice identified a legacy system as the entry point. OpenCode had been preparing to decommission that system when the unauthorized access occurred. Third-party provider keys stored in user workspaces may have been exposed.
We had a security breach last night related to a large scale distillation attack that impacted 1.4% of OpenCode Console users
We have notified them all this morning via email. If you did not get an email you were not impacted, it was a subset of users who had external providers…
— OpenCode (@opencode) October 17, 2026
The company is working with OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google to address the incident. However, OpenCode said the investigation remains ongoing and declined to share additional details.
Security commentator Matt Johansen also reported customer concerns about stolen keys and unexpected API charges. Community discussions described users receiving breach notifications and warnings to revoke their credentials.
OpenCode has not disclosed the total number of affected accounts or confirmed the full extent of the attackers’ access. The 1.4% figure represents the share of Console users affected, not the percentage of exposed keys or compromised providers.
What the OpenCode Distillation Attack Means for API Security
A distillation attack involves querying an AI model extensively to collect outputs that can help train another model. Developers can use these responses to approximate aspects of a more capable model’s behavior.
In this incident, OpenCode identified a large-scale distillation attack but has not explained which models attackers targeted. It also has not disclosed the query volume, the duration of the activity, or the identity of those responsible.
Confirmed. OpenCode hacked. Keys stolen.
Telling customers to revoke. https://t.co/rQz6G9reGG pic.twitter.com/onOyjWevr0
— Matt Johansen (@mattjay) October 17, 2026
Stolen API keys can allow attackers to make requests using a victim’s provider account. Depending on the provider’s billing arrangements and account permissions, unauthorized requests can generate charges for the key’s owner.
This creates a direct financial risk for developers and businesses that store provider credentials in external applications. A compromised key may remain usable until its owner revokes it or the provider otherwise disables access.
OpenCode instructed affected customers to revoke and replace exposed keys through their providers’ dashboards. Users must also update applications that rely on those credentials and review recent usage for suspicious activity.
Rotating keys quickly can prevent further unauthorized requests using the compromised credentials. Spending limits and usage alerts can help reduce potential losses, while secure credential storage can limit exposure.
The incident highlights the risks of linking external AI services to development platforms. Until OpenCode provides further findings, affected users should treat potentially exposed credentials as compromised and verify their provider usage.
The post OpenCode Security Breach Exposes API Keys of 1.4% of Console Users appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
Mark Karpelès says Ledger knew about advanced hardware wallet implants by March 2026.
Karpelès claims stronger public warnings could have prevented more than $90 million in losses.
Ledger CEO Pascal Gauthier responded by referencing Karpelès’ history leading Mt. Gox.
The dispute raises questions about hardware wallet security disclosures and customer communication.
Former Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpelès has criticized Ledger’s response to a hardware wallet supply chain attack involving sophisticated implants.
He argues that the company should have issued a stronger public warning after documenting advanced implant designs in March 2026. Karpelès says clearer communication could have prevented more than $90 million in losses.
Ledger CEO Pascal Gauthier responded by referencing Karpelès’ leadership at Mt. Gox. The exchange has raised questions about how hardware wallet providers communicate emerging security threats to customers.
Ledger Hardware Wallet Attack Sparks Disclosure Dispute
Karpelès acknowledged that Ledger published an educational article about the implant threat in March 2026. The Ledger Academy article reportedly recommended purchasing devices directly from Ledger or its authorized resellers.
However, he argued that a single educational article was insufficient for a threat of this severity. He said evidence of mass-produced, self-aligning implants should have prompted an urgent security response.
Karpelès pointed to multiple reports of implants received in early 2026. He also referenced hardware implant designs documented by security researcher Joe Grand, including a handmade device with an improvised LTE antenna.
According to Karpelès, Ledger’s March article showed both handmade and advanced, mass-produced implant designs. He argued that these devices indicated a serious effort to compromise Ledger products.
He described the situation as a potential “five-alarm fire” that demanded immediate and appropriate action. He also estimated that better communication at the time could have prevented more than $90 million in losses.
These figures and assessments reflect Karpelès’ claims in his public statements. The supplied information does not independently establish the amount of losses attributable to the alleged communication failures.
I'm not sure MtGox has anything to do with that. You received multiple reports of implants in early 2026, and by March you published an article that showed both the hand-made style of implants Joe Grand saw (with the improvised LTE antenna) and the high budget mass produced…
— Mark Karpelès (@MagicalTux) October 17, 2026
Ledger Security Disclosure Raises Questions for Crypto Users
The dispute intensified after Gauthier responded to Karpelès by invoking his history as Mt. Gox CEO. Karpelès rejected that criticism, arguing that the exchange’s past had no bearing on Ledger’s responsibilities.
He said he had expected Ledger to learn from Mt. Gox’s failures and maintain stronger security and disclosure standards. He also questioned the company’s continued characterization of the incident as the CryptoBilis incident.
Karpelès noted that similar implants had reportedly surfaced in other locations. He acknowledged there might be reasons for Ledger’s terminology but argued that customers should not have to determine whether their devices had been altered.
He also recognized some improvements, including greater involvement from Ledger’s X account. However, he said users continued reporting difficulties obtaining responses from the company.
The controversy highlights a key distinction in hardware wallet security: publishing technical guidance is not necessarily equivalent to issuing an urgent customer warning. Users need clear information about potential threats, recommended purchasing channels, and steps to assess their exposure.
Hardware wallets protect private keys by keeping them isolated from ordinary internet-connected environments. However, compromised hardware can undermine those protections if malicious components interfere with device operations or security checks.
For crypto investors, the dispute reinforces the importance of buying hardware wallets directly from manufacturers or authorized resellers. It also highlights why transparent incident reporting matters when sophisticated attacks threaten devices designed to protect digital assets.
The post Ledger Faces Backlash Over Hardware Wallet Implant Warnings appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
G7 average 10-year government bond yields rose over one percentage point between February and September.
Global public debt is projected to exceed 100% of GDP by 2030, the IMF warns.
US government interest payments could reach 5.7% of GDP in 2031, matching projected Social Security spending.
The IMF says reducing deficits and improving debt management are essential to limit future borrowing costs.
Global bond yields are climbing as governments face mounting debt and tighter fiscal constraints. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) warns that rising borrowing costs could worsen public finances and complicate efforts to stabilize debt.
Between February and September, the Group of Seven’s average 10-year government bond yield rose by more than one percentage point.
The average reached its highest level in nearly two decades. Meanwhile, global public debt is projected to exceed 100% of global GDP by 2030, a threshold last reached immediately after World War II.
Why Rising Bond Yields Are Increasing Global Debt Pressures
The IMF identifies several forces behind rising yields, including persistent inflation, higher oil prices, stronger investment demand, and expected growth linked to artificial intelligence. However, fiscal fundamentals remain central to the outlook.
High government debt, expanding spending needs, and expectations of substantial bond issuance are pushing up the returns investors demand. Higher yields in major economies can also spread across borders, increasing financing costs elsewhere.
The pressure is already appearing in government budgets. The effective average interest cost of government financing is projected to increase from 2.3% in 2021 to 3.7% by 2031.
The United States faces a particularly heavy burden.
Government interest payments are projected to rise from approximately 2.8% of GDP before the pandemic to 5.7% in 2031. That would roughly match projected Social Security spending, the country’s largest entitlement program.
Low-income countries face even tighter constraints. Interest payments currently consume more than 15% of their total fiscal revenues, compared with an average of approximately 9% between 2011 and 2019.
These payments leave governments with fewer resources for infrastructure, social programs, and economic support. They also restrict governments’ ability to respond to downturns or meet growing defense and energy security demands.
Rising bond yields are adding pressure on public finances already strained by debt approaching its highest since World War II. Putting fiscal policy on a credible path now can help contain borrowing costs and limit risks. Read more in the latest Fiscal Monitor blog:… pic.twitter.com/xDo0sx0Jyo
— IMF (@IMFNews) October 17, 2026
How Rising Bond Yields Could Complicate Debt Stabilization
The IMF warns that debt stabilization requires stronger fiscal balances when borrowing costs exceed expected nominal economic growth. Governments must generate larger primary surpluses or reduce primary deficits to prevent debt ratios from increasing.
However, the global primary deficit is projected to reach 3.3% of GDP in 2026.
Stabilizing the global debt-to-GDP ratio this year would require reducing that deficit to approximately 2.6%. Further adjustment of a similar magnitude would be needed in subsequent years as debt continues rising.
Debt maturity also matters. Governments refinancing more debt over shorter periods face faster transmission of higher policy rates into their borrowing costs. This creates a feedback loop between monetary policy, fiscal pressure, and market interest rates.
The IMF also cautions that favorable financing conditions for emerging markets may not last. A change in investor risk appetite could widen sovereign spreads and restrict access to international funding.
The report calls for credible medium-term fiscal plans, stronger debt management, improved tax systems, and more efficient public spending. Its central warning is clear: delaying fiscal adjustment could increase borrowing costs and force governments into more painful measures later.
The post IMF Warns Rising Bond Yields Could Deepen Global Debt Crisis appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:
NEAR weekly TD sequential sell signal puts $4.30 support in focus, with $3.76 below it.
Zcash’s bearish Parabolic SAR flip comes as ZEC tests $1,100, with $850 as the next downside level.
BNB’s daily SuperTrend sell signal puts $710 support at risk, with $680 as the next level to watch.
Analysts warn of downside risks, but confirmed support breaks matter more than historical signal outcomes.
Three altcoins are flashing bearish technical signals as NEAR Protocol, Zcash (ZEC), and BNB face critical support tests.
Market analyst Ali Charts identified sell signals across the three assets using the TD Sequential, Parabolic SAR, and SuperTrend indicators. Each signal has preceded a substantial correction in a previous comparable setup.
However, past price movements do not guarantee similar outcomes this time. Traders are now watching key support levels for signs of whether the current pullbacks will deepen.
NEAR, Zcash, and BNB Sell Signals Put Support Levels in Focus
According to Ali Charts, NEAR’s weekly TD sequential indicator has flashed a sell signal.
The last comparable signal preceded a 32% correction. NEAR has already fallen 24%, with $4.30 identified as immediate support. A break below that level could expose the $3.76 area.
3 ALTCOINS SHOW SELL SIGNALS
1/5
— Ali Charts (@alicharts) October 17, 2026
However, analyst Giannis Andreou highlights a longer-term bullish structure. He says NEAR has broken above a falling trendline stretching back to its 2022 peak. The breakout preceded a rally toward $6, while $3.73 remains the key level buyers must defend.
If NEAR holds that support, Andreou identifies $7.60 as the next major resistance. The $9 region represents a potential neckline for a multi-year double-bottom pattern.
A confirmed breakout above that neckline could strengthen the case for a move toward $20.59. Losing $3.73, however, would weaken the bullish structure.
Zcash faces a separate warning from its Parabolic SAR indicator. The indicator’s dots have moved above the price, suggesting bearish momentum.
Ali Charts notes that the previous bearish flip preceded a 54% retracement. ZEC has already pulled back 25%, while $1,100 and $850 mark the levels traders are monitoring.
Analyst Ardi offers a broader interpretation of Zcash’s price action. He describes the pullback as mean reversion following an overheated rally toward $1,600.
Under this framework, prices can retreat toward their historical average before consolidating or attempting another advance.
Can BNB, NEAR, and Zcash Avoid Deeper Corrections?
BNB’s daily SuperTrend indicator has also flipped to a sell signal, according to Ali Charts.
The previous comparable flip preceded a 26% decline, while BNB has fallen 8% so far. Ali identifies $710 as support and $680 as the next downside level if buyers fail to defend it.
CoinGecko data puts BNB at $713.73, down 0.98% over 24 hours and 4.67% over seven days. Its reported daily trading volume stands at $504.96 million, providing additional context for the ongoing pullback.
BNB price on CoinGecko
Analyst Don Wedge identifies a falling wedge on BNB’s daily chart following its $1,370 peak.
Price faced rejection near the upper boundary around $800 and subsequently retreated toward $730. He places the lower wedge boundary near $540, with a daily close above the upper trendline potentially targeting $1,601.
These technical readings present different scenarios rather than confirmed price outcomes.
Sell signals suggest caution, but support breaks would provide stronger evidence of further downside. For traders, the immediate focus remains on whether NEAR holds $4.30, ZEC defends $1,100, and BNB maintains $710.
All three altcoins face bearish technical warnings, but their next moves depend on how price responds at critical support levels.
The post NEAR Price Risks $3.76 as Zcash and BNB Signal Further Downside appeared first on Blockonomi.