BITZ0

North America's NHL draws most of the attention, yet Europe hosts three of the world's strongest domestic hockey leagues through the same months. Russia's KHL, Sweden's SHL and Finland's Liiga together offer games almost every night from September to spring.
Each league plays by slightly different rules, and those differences shape the markets. Points systems, overtime formats and schedule length all change how a match settles and how prices form.
Below: KHL markets, SHL markets and Liiga markets side by side, the regulation rule that decides most bets, and what a crypto sportsbook lists.
Three Leagues at a Glance
Season structure varies more than many bettors expect.

KHL
SHL
Liiga
Base
Russia, with clubs from Belarus, Kazakhstan and China
Sweden
Finland
Teams
22 in 2026-27
14
16
Regular season
68 games, 5 September to 20 March
52 games, mid-September to March
60 games, September to March
Points for a win
2, in regulation, overtime or shootout
3 in regulation, 2 in overtime or shootout
3 in regulation, 2 in overtime or shootout
Points for an overtime loss
1
1
1
Overtime format
Five minutes three-on-three, then shootout
Five minutes three-on-three, then shootout
Five minutes three-on-three, then shootout
Current champion
Lokomotiv Yaroslavl
Skellefteå AIK
Check the league's current table
Last verified: September 2026
Gagarin Cup playoffs in the KHL start on 23 March 2027, with a possible Game 7 of the final on 23 May. SHL and Liiga playoffs follow their regular seasons through April.
Regulation Time Markets Decide Most Bets
Hockey markets split into two families, and confusion between them causes more settlement surprises than any other rule.
Regulation markets settle on the score after 60 minutes, before overtime or a shootout. Dexsport calls its version "match result, clean victory or draw", a three-way market where the draw pays if the score is level after three periods.
Full-game markets include overtime and the shootout, so they always produce a winner and pay as two-way prices.
Points systems explain why the difference matters. In the SHL and Liiga, a regulation win earns three points against two for an overtime win, so teams gain real value from a result inside 60 minutes.
In the KHL, every win earns two points, whatever the route. Always check whether a price covers 60 minutes or the full game before you bet.
Markets Past the Final Score
Hockey supports a deep set of markets, built around goals, periods and players.
Handicaps: goal lines such as −1.5 on the favourite, often called the puck line
Totals: more or fewer goals than a set figure, for the match or a single period
Period markets: the winner of a period, handicaps within a period and period totals
Goal clock: when the first goal comes, or the first or last goal of a period
Player markets: goal scorer, next goalscorer and total points from goals and assists
Specials: a team that falls behind and comes back to win
Early-season prices deserve extra care, since new signings and changed line-ups take weeks to show in results, much as early-season odds move in football.
Champions Hockey League Links the Leagues
The Champions Hockey League brings clubs from several European leagues together each autumn and winter. Its 2026-27 edition features 24 teams, from 3 September 2026 to a final on 23 February 2027.
SHL and Liiga clubs take part, among them Frölunda, Skellefteå, Växjö, Rögle, Tappara, KooKoo and SaiPa. KHL clubs stay outside the competition. For bettors, cross-league games test form in a different way, since teams meet opponents they rarely face.
Ice Hockey on Dexsport
Dexsport lists 21 Dexsport ice hockey market types in its sportsbook rules, from the three-way regulation result through handicaps, totals and period markets to goal scorers and comeback specials. Some types, such as penalty minutes and shots, apply only to NHL or IIHF events.
Stake limits vary by competition, and bets start from $1. Residents of Russia and Belarus cannot open Dexsport accounts, which matters for KHL fans in those countries. Its licence comes from Anjouan, and the market list changes, so check what each fixture offers.
North American hockey follows different rules again, as a guide to the NHL season explains, from an 84-game schedule to its own overtime format.
Conclusion
Europe's three big leagues play from September to spring, with 22, 14 and 16 teams. In the KHL, any win earns two points, while the SHL and Liiga give three for a regulation win and two for a win in overtime or a shootout.
The 60-minute rule is therefore the key to every hockey bet. Regulation markets settle after three periods and can pay a draw, while full-game markets include overtime and always produce a winner.
Check which version a price covers before you bet. Confirm local law, set a limit for each night, and bet only if you are of legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply. Responsible gambling matters through a long season.


Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice, and nothing here is a betting tip or prediction. League formats, schedules and market lists change, so check current details before you bet. Sports wagers involve risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please play responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

OG, Liquidity Shark, DEXorcist, Blockchain Monk, DEX King, Web3 Nomad, FOMO Lord, Satoshi's Cousin, Crypto Lion. Dexsport's VIP Club names its nine levels after crypto culture, and the thresholds climb from $7,500 in monthly deposits to $1 million.
Behind the playful names lies a simple structure of deposit-based rewards. Each level pays a fixed reward once; the rewards stack as you climb, and the counter resets every month.
The numbers reveal more than the names. Below: the full ladder, what each level returns as a share of deposits, and the choice attached to every reward.
The Nine Levels and What They Pay
The Dexsport VIP Club counts deposits from 00:01 on the first day of the month to 23:59 on the last. Reach a level, and its reward unlocks straight away, in addition to every level below it.
Level
Monthly deposits
Reward at this level
Cumulative rewards
Rewards as a share of deposits
OG
$7,500
$100
$100
1.33%
Liquidity Shark
$15,000
$250
$350
2.33%
DEXorcist
$25,000
$500
$850
3.40%
Blockchain Monk
$50,000
$750
$1,600
3.20%
DEX King
$100,000
$1,000
$2,600
2.60%
Web3 Nomad
$200,000
$2,000
$4,600
2.30%
FOMO Lord
$350,000
$5,000
$9,600
2.74%
Satoshi's Cousin
$500,000
$10,000
$19,600
3.92%
Crypto Lion
$1,000,000
$25,000
$44,600
4.46%
Last verified: September 2026
The share column tells the real story. DEXorcist, at $25,000, returns 3.40% of deposits, a higher rate than any level up to FOMO Lord. After DEXorcist the rate dips, then climbs again at the two highest levels, and Crypto Lion hits 4.46%.
One Month on the Ladder
Here is how the levels add up across a single month.
First week: deposits reach $8,000, and OG unlocks for $100
Second week: the total passes $15,000, and Liquidity Shark adds $250
Third week: the total reaches $26,000, and DEXorcist adds $500
Month end: the rewards total $850 across three levels
First of next month: the counter returns to zero, and the ladder starts again
Deposits count, not losses or winnings. Every deposit still needs play before withdrawal under Dexsport's account terms, so the programme rewards money that actually goes into the games.
Freebet or Casino Bonus
Every level offers a choice at the Claim reward button, and the two options differ sharply in value.
VIP freebet: a single sports bet at odds between 1.8 and 3.5, which pays winnings only, without the stake
Casino bonus rollover: cash bonus funds with a 20x play-through before withdrawal
Take a $1,000 reward at DEX King. As a freebet at odds of 2.5, it returns $1,500 profit if it wins and zero if it loses. As a casino bonus, $1,000 at 20x means $20,000 in bets before withdrawal, and at a 4% house edge that play brings an expected cost of about $800.
Both options are worth less than face value. Compare the bonus terms across platforms, and weigh the freebet's odds range against the casino rollover before you claim.
VIP Among Dexsport's Other Rewards
Dexsport offers three crypto casino loyalty programmes, and each responds to different activity.
VIP Club: monthly deposit volume, with nine levels and cumulative rewards
Sports Club: monthly sports turnover, with freebets paid at the start of every month
Weekly cashback: 5% to 15% of net weekly losses, paid every Monday in stablecoins
Of the three, the VIP Club alone tracks deposits.
Its thresholds appear openly on the promotions page, which sets it apart from programmes that keep targets private, as a look at published thresholds across casinos shows. Anjouan's regulator licenses Dexsport, and promotional terms can change.
Conclusion
Dexsport's VIP Club stretches from OG at $7,500 in monthly deposits to Crypto Lion at $1 million, with rewards from $100 to $25,000 that stack as players climb.
Measured against deposits, DEXorcist offers the strongest rate below the two highest levels, at 3.40%, while Crypto Lion hits 4.46%. Each reward comes as a freebet or a casino bonus with 20x rollover.
Deposit only what you planned to use anyway, since the counter resets every month. Confirm the rules where you live, cap your monthly deposits in advance, and sign up only once you meet the legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply. Responsible gambling means you never deposit just to reach a level.

Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice. Promotional levels, rewards and terms change and can be withdrawn, so check the current rules on the platform before you rely on any programme. Casino games and sports wagers involve risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please play responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

You buy Yes shares at 30 cents on a question months from resolution. Six weeks on, news pushes the price to 55 cents. Hold for a dollar per share if you're right, or sell now for 25 cents of profit per share.
This choice lies at the heart of prediction markets, and it matters whenever you sell a prediction market position. Shares are tradable positions, not sealed tickets, and their price moves every time the crowd's view changes.
Below: what a sale does, how prediction market profit adds up, and what to check before you sell.
The Mechanics of a Sale
Each sale closes some or all of your shares at the current market price. The result depends only on the difference between what you paid and what you receive.
Buy at 30 cents and sell at 55, and each share returns a 25-cent profit before costs. Buy at 30 and sell at 18, and each share loses 12 cents. Once you sell, the final outcome of the event can't affect those shares.
Partial exits work the same way. Sell half your position and the other half stays open, still exposed to the eventual result. Traders use this to take some profit and retain a stake in the outcome.
Three Exits Worked Through
The table follows 100 Yes shares bought at 30 cents, a $30 position, through three different exits.
Scenario
Sell price
Proceeds
Profit or loss
If held to resolution
Good news, early exit
55 cents
$55
+$25
$100 if Yes, $0 if No
Bad news, cut the loss
18 cents
$18
−$12
$100 if Yes, $0 if No
Near the deadline, almost certain
96 cents
$96
+$66
$100 if Yes, $0 if No
Every row trades a certain amount now against an uncertain amount later. The third row shows why some traders sell even when an outcome looks settled: 96 cents in hand removes the small chance of a late reversal, at a cost of four cents per share.
Reasons Traders Exit Early
Several reasons push traders to sell before resolution.
New information: fresh news can change your view, and a sale acts on it straight away
Locked profit: a price that has moved your way can reverse before the deadline
Capital back: funds tied up in a long-dated market can go to another question instead
Risk control: a partial exit shrinks exposure but retains some upside
Each reason has a cost. Your sale price already reflects the crowd's latest view, so an exit only beats a hold if the market later moves against you.
Order Books, Pools and the Exit Price
The sale price depends on how the platform matches trades.
On order-book platforms, you sell to the highest open bid, and a large sale may work through several price levels, each lower than the last. On pool-based platforms, the price comes from the liquidity behind the market, and a big sale can move it against you in the same way.
Either way, an immediate exit costs money. Yes and No prices usually add up to slightly more than a dollar, so a position bought and sold straight away returns less than it cost. Thin markets widen that loss, which is why market depth matters as much for exits as for entries.
Exits on Dexsport
Dexsport describes a sale before resolution as possible whenever liquidity exists, one of the features that shape Dexsport prediction markets. The sell control appears once you hold a position, so check the market page after your first purchase to confirm how the exit works for that question.
Sportsbook rules stay separate, which settles the prediction markets vs Cash Out question. Cash Out closes sports bets early and does not apply here.
Sportsbook stake and win limits stay in the sportsbook too. Anyone who knows sportsbook Cash Out should treat a prediction market sale as its own mechanism.
Everything trades and pays out in stablecoins, and the rules panel on each question shows when it closes and which source settles it. Anjouan licenses the platform; confirm the current exit rules before you depend on them.
Conclusion
Every sale locks in the difference between your entry price and the current price, win or lose. Shares bought at 30 cents and sold at 55 return 25 cents each, whatever happens next.
Traders exit to act on news, protect gains, free up capital or cut risk. Every exit costs something, since Yes and No prices usually add up to more than a dollar.
On Dexsport, confirm the sell route on each market page once you hold a position. Know what your country permits, decide your exit price before you buy, and take part only if you are old enough, since KYC or AML checks may apply. Responsible gambling includes a clear plan for when to walk away.


Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice, and nothing here is a trading recommendation. Figures in the worked table are illustrative. Market mechanics, liquidity and terms change, so check current details on the platform before you trade. Trading on event outcomes involves risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please participate responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

Chicago, United States, September 28th, 2026, Chainwire
AlgoQuant will deploy Liquid Mercury's institutional-grade trading technology to scale its multi-strategy investment platform and enhance execution capabilities across global digital asset markets.
Liquid Mercury, a leading technology provider for digital asset marketplaces and crypto trading, announced today that it has been engaged by AlgoQuant Asset Management, an investment manager focused on solving inefficiencies in fast-evolving markets, to provide trading technology and infrastructure services.
The engagement will enable AlgoQuant to leverage Liquid Mercury's institutional-grade trading technology and infrastructure to enhance its multi-strategy investment platform. AlgoQuant will gain access to deep liquidity, advanced execution capabilities, and professional-grade trading tools that support the firm's commitment to quantitative excellence, risk integrity, and operational resilience.
Liquid Mercury's battle-tested platform combined with AlgoQuant's sophisticated quantitative strategies provides a powerful foundation for executing complex digital asset trades across global markets. This technology integration allows AlgoQuant to maintain 24/7 trading operations while scaling talent, capital, and technology without compromising precision.
With a team spanning key global financial and digital asset markets, AlgoQuant operates as a multi-strategy investment platform designed to perform across diverse market environments. Through Liquid Mercury's platform, AlgoQuant will benefit from access to top-tier liquidity providers, low-latency infrastructure, and comprehensive middle and back-office tools designed to meet the demands of institutional asset managers operating in digital asset markets.
"AlgoQuant came to us with very specific infrastructure requirements that are unique to their sophisticated quantitative strategies," stated Liquid Mercury CEO, Tony Saliba. "What sets Liquid Mercury apart is our ability to shape our tech stack to meet each client's distinct needs. This level of customization isn't something firms can always find off the shelf, but our battle-tested platform was built with the flexibility to adapt while maintaining institutional-grade standards. We're honored to provide the tailored technology infrastructure that will support AlgoQuant as it continues to scale its investment platform."
“Liquid Mercury has been an excellent technology partner for AlgoQuant Asset Management,” said Alexander Goncharov, President of AlgoQuant Asset Management. “We are very pleased with their sophisticated technology stack, collaborative approach, and willingness to tailor the platform to our specific needs. Their infrastructure delivers the speed, reliability, and precision required in today’s digital asset markets while integrating seamlessly with our proprietary systems and workflows.”
About AlgoQuant Asset Management
AlgoQuant is an investment manager with a clear mission: to solve inefficiencies in fast-evolving markets. From day one, the firm has been focused on building a platform that can scale talent, capital, and technology without compromising precision. At the heart of AlgoQuant's model is a commitment to quantitative excellence, risk integrity, and operational resilience.
AlgoQuant operates as a multi-strategy investment platform with global reach, featuring team members and trading teams based in key global financial and digital asset markets. The firm's structure supports 24/7 execution, oversight, and engagement with global allocators.
Further information can be found at www.aq.io
About Liquid Mercury
Liquid Mercury powers professional crypto trading and digital asset marketplaces. Founded by legendary trader Tony Saliba, who was featured in Jack Schwager's "Market Wizards," Liquid Mercury is the #1 choice for sophisticated buy-side and institutional sell-side trading professionals moving into crypto.
Mercury Pro is an institutional-grade trading platform designed specifically for professional traders navigating crypto derivatives and spot markets. The platform offers sophisticated trade execution tools including DMA routing, staging, execution algorithms, and anonymous multi-dealer RFQ to source block liquidity. Traders can manage all orders and trade data in a single platform with real-time views of balances and account positions.
Key capabilities include access to crypto derivatives at leading onshore and offshore exchanges, institutional-sized pricing with top OTC liquidity providers, and a wide range of spot products across leading exchanges. The platform supports both single-leg and multi-leg orders in net price structures, with low-latency infrastructure built for high-frequency and algorithmic trading strategies.
Liquid Mercury integrates with world-class custodians including Fireblocks, Gemini, and BitGo, and provides comprehensive APIs (FIX, WebSocket, and REST) for automated trading and workflow customization. Built by professionals for professionals, Liquid Mercury combines battle-tested trading technology with deep liquidity access and best-in-class workflow automation.
For more information about Liquid Mercury and the $MERC token, users can visit www.liquidmercury.com or merc.liquidmercury.com.
Disclaimer
This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities or fund interests in any jurisdiction. Any offer or solicitation of interests in any fund managed by AlgoQuant Asset Management Corp will be made only by definitive offering documents, and only to eligible investors in accordance with applicable law. No statement in this press release is, or should be construed as, a representation as to the past or future performance of any fund or strategy managed by AlgoQuant.
ContactDirectorKent EganLiquid Mercurysales@liquidmercury.com
Disclaimer: This is a sponsored press release and is for informational purposes only. It does not reflect the views of Bitzo, nor is it intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, or financial advice.

XRP traded near $1.48 on September 28, placing it just below the $1.50 area that traders are watching as a near-term support and retest zone. The token moved roughly between $1.47 and $1.54 over the preceding 24 hours, with daily volume around $3.6 billion, according to CoinMarketCap.
The setup is not purely technical. U.S. spot XRP exchange-traded funds recorded about $22.65 million in net inflows on September 25, taking cumulative inflows to roughly $1.79 billion despite renewed price weakness, according to U.Today, citing SoSoValue. That demand backdrop contrasts with a spot price that has not yet established a clear hold above $1.50.
For this XRP price prediction, the immediate question is therefore narrower than the broader bullish structure: whether buyers can recover the $1.50 area and reclaim nearby resistance before another attempt at the main overhead barrier. A failure to do so would leave lower published support levels in play.
XRP daily indicators remain bullish despite the $1.50 test
Daily indicators supplied through September 28 still describe a constructive XRP/USD trend, although the readings are snapshots rather than guarantees of a continued move. XRP’s $1.48 spot price was above the published 12-day and 26-day exponential moving averages of $1.46 and $1.41, respectively. Blockspot characterizes that short-term EMA arrangement as bullish.
The same September 26 reading placed the daily 14-period RSI at 62.9. That is in a bullish zone while remaining below the commonly used overbought threshold, which supports the view that momentum had been positive without the supplied data indicating an already overextended daily RSI condition.
Momentum confirmation also appears in the MACD figures. The daily MACD line was 0.0552 against a 0.0409 signal line, leaving the MACD above its signal line in Blockspot’s reading. This alignment matters because it is consistent with the positive EMA structure, rather than a market where price is attempting to rise against weakening momentum.
Longer-term averages point in the same direction. The 50-day simple moving average stood at $1.31 and the 200-day SMA at $1.28; Blockspot labels their relationship a golden cross. Separately, FullSwing AI described the 20-day EMA as rising and XRP as trading above its 200-day EMA, characterizing the daily structure as an uptrend.
There is an important tension at the current price. FullSwing lists $1.50 as daily S1 pivot support and a nearby retest area, yet the CoinMarketCap spot snapshot of $1.48 sits marginally beneath it. That does not by itself settle whether the level has failed, but it means the $1.50 label cannot yet be treated as confirmed support on the available snapshot. The bullish moving-average and momentum readings instead provide the technical basis for a recovery attempt.
XRP support at $1.45-$1.50 and resistance through $1.70
The closest levels are tightly clustered around the current price. The $1.45-$1.50 range is the most relevant support area because it incorporates the $1.50 pivot/retest level and the consolidation-and-recovery zone identified by U.Today. With XRP near $1.48, the market is effectively trading inside that decision area rather than approaching it from a distance.
LevelRolePublished basis $1.45-$1.50Nearest support zoneRecent consolidation/recovery support; $1.50 also cited as daily S1 and a retest area $1.38Next lower supportPivot-based S3 support $1.28-$1.31Deeper support regionPublished 50-day and 200-day moving-average area $1.52-$1.54First resistance bandDaily pivot and R1 zone based on sealed Binance spot candles $1.57Next resistanceR1 pivot resistance $1.65-$1.70Major overhead barrierPrior rally high and main barrier in recent commentary
On an upside path, XRP would first need to regain the $1.52-$1.54 band. That range is especially relevant because the reported 24-hour high near $1.54 coincides with the nearest published resistance zone. A move through it would shift attention to $1.57, while $1.65-$1.70 remains the larger obstacle identified after XRP’s recovery from September consolidation. Blockspot’s $1.66 R3 pivot falls inside that same broader barrier, reinforcing the importance of the area rather than adding a separate target.
The downside path is clearer in terms of invalidation. A sustained loss of the $1.45-$1.50 support zone would weaken the case that XRP is merely retesting a breakout base. The next supplied support is $1.38, followed by the $1.28-$1.31 moving-average region. Those levels are not forecasts; they are the lower reference points supplied by the technical sources should the nearer zone fail to attract buyers.
U.Today’s September 28 market commentary similarly framed $1.45-$1.50 as near-term support and $1.65-$1.70 as the principal ceiling. The intervening $1.52-$1.54 and $1.57 levels show why a breakout case requires more than simply preventing a decline below $1.50: price must also absorb several nearby resistance references before testing the major barrier.
XRP price prediction: whether $1.50 can hold before a breakout
The conditional near-term XRP outlook is cautiously constructive, but $1.50 was not convincingly holding at the $1.48 spot snapshot. The difference is small, and the current price remains within the broader $1.45-$1.50 support area. Still, a price marginally below the specified pivot/retest level calls for confirmation rather than an assumption that the support test has already been resolved in buyers’ favor.
The bullish case has credible inputs. Daily RSI at 62.9, a positive MACD-versus-signal-line relationship, bullish short-term EMAs, and price above the 200-day EMA all point to a constructive technical backdrop. ETF flows add a separate demand-related development: the reported September 25 net inflow occurred despite XRP price weakness. Ripple also expanded its XRP Ledger AI Starter Kit to support the Stripe- and Tempo-backed Machine Payments Protocol, enabling automated payments in XRP and RLUSD, as reported by CoinDesk.
Those factors support a recovery scenario if XRP can defend $1.45-$1.50 and reclaim $1.52-$1.54. Clearing $1.57 would further strengthen the case that the market is moving away from a support test and toward a breakout attempt at $1.65-$1.70. The title’s $1.50 level is therefore best viewed as a near-term confirmation point, not a researched upside destination or a guarantee that an advance will follow.
Conversely, a loss of $1.45 would weaken the immediate breakout setup and put $1.38 into focus under the supplied levels. The broader technical structure would have more room before the $1.28-$1.31 moving-average region, but the market would no longer be demonstrating that $1.50 is functioning as support.
Regulation remains a contextual uncertainty. The Senate’s CLARITY Act vote failed 49-50 on September 15, while Ripple said the result did not alter its position that XRP has settled legal footing. For now, the price evidence gives the clearest answer: XRP retains bullish daily signals, but a credible breakout case depends first on recovering nearby resistance and preserving the $1.45-$1.50 zone.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Validator support for the XRP Ledger’s BatchV1_1 amendment recovered to 30 of 35 trusted validators on September 28, resetting its activation window and moving the earliest possible activation date to October 9, provided support remains uninterrupted. FinanceFeeds reported that the recovery displaced a previously expected September activation.
The scheduling shift follows an emergency xrpld 3.4.1 release issued by XRP Ledger Operations on September 25. The release introduced a corrective amendment, fixBatchV1_2, for a Batch-related issue and prompted validators and node operators to upgrade.
xrpld 3.4.1 adds fixBatchV1_2 for the Batch-related issue
XRP Ledger Operations said xrpld 3.4.1 addressed the issue through the new fixBatchV1_2 amendment. It also said the matter had no impact on the XRPL mainnet and resulted in no loss of funds.
The organization advised validators and node operators to install the release. The Crypto Times reported on September 25 that fixBatchV1_2 entered an activation period alongside BatchV1_1, and that remaining on an earlier version could create incompatibility and potentially block amendment activation.
Validator support resets the October 9 timetable
The return of support from 30 of the 35 trusted validators restarted the relevant activation period, rather than immediately enabling BatchV1_1. As a result, October 9 is the earliest possible date—not a confirmed activation date—because support must remain in place throughout the required window.
Because the support recovery reset the activation window, the Batch rollout cannot complete on the earlier timetable referenced in reporting; the corrective amendment, meanwhile, is proceeding through its own activation process.
The amendment support threshold
XRPL amendments require support from more than 80% of validators for two consecutive weeks. If support falls below that threshold during the period, the countdown restarts, according to FinanceFeeds.
For BatchV1_1, uninterrupted validator backing is now the remaining condition for an October 9 activation. Operators were urged to upgrade to xrpld 3.4.1 as fixBatchV1_2 and BatchV1_1 move through their activation periods.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Ethena’s proposed expansion of USDe backing into tokenized equities arrives after the most conspicuous part of the trade has already weakened. Annualized funding across the Binance names that meet its initial screen averaged about 18% in late July, according to the framework submitted to Ethena governance. By the time of the report, that figure had fallen to roughly 7%, and two names had negative funding.
That does not invalidate the strategy. It does, however, put the central proposition in sharper terms: USDe would not be gaining access to a durable, automatic premium merely because equity perpetuals are a new market. It would be taking on a tightly defined arbitrage trade whose return depends on funding remaining favorable, whose execution is concentrated on a small set of venues, and whose hedge is least reliable during the hours that tokenized equities are meant to serve.
Equity-perpetual funding has fallen from 18% to roughly 7%
The proposed position is straightforward in structure. Ethena would go long a tokenized equity and short an equity perpetual contract for the same underlying on the same exchange, seeking to collect perpetual funding while offsetting directional share-price exposure. In principle, a rise or fall in the underlying equity should be largely neutralized by the opposing legs, leaving funding and trading frictions as the material sources of return or loss.
But the proposal is narrower than a broad allocation to tokenized stocks. Ethena’s framework, prepared with Kairos Research, initially identified 17 eligible Binance names and three on OKX. Those are assets that met its specific tests for perpetual-market depth, funding history, listed underlyings and a corresponding tokenized spot product on the same venue.
The contraction in observed carry matters because the trade’s market-neutral construction does not create yield by itself. Funding is paid between long and short perpetual participants, and its direction can change. At roughly 7% annualized, the reported average still represents a potential income source before costs and losses, but it is materially lower than the late-July reading. Negative funding in two approved names also demonstrates that the opportunity is neither uniform across equities nor assured over time.
That is a meaningful distinction for a stablecoin collateral strategy. An allocation designed around repeatable yield needs more than a period of elevated funding: it needs sufficient return after transaction costs, hedge slippage and the capital required to withstand adverse moves. The framework offers evidence of a market that can support selected trades, not evidence that every tokenized-equity perpetual will consistently pay a premium.
Ethena’s eligibility screen leaves Binance as the viable initial venue
The screen itself explains why the potential universe is small. A qualifying perpetual must have at least $25 million in one-sided open interest averaged over 14 days and at least 30 days of funding history. The underlying must be listed, cannot be a leveraged or inverse exchange-traded fund, and must have a matching tokenized spot asset on the same venue.
Each restriction serves an execution purpose. Open interest is a rough guardrail against entering a position in a market too shallow to handle collateral at scale. Funding history permits an assessment of behavior rather than an extrapolation from a launch-period print. Requiring both legs on one venue addresses a more practical problem: a hedge that depends on transferring assets or settling across platforms can break down just when prices move fastest.
The result is substantial venue concentration. Binance supplied 17 qualifying names, compared with three at OKX, while Bybit and Kraken had no names that met the criteria in the initial review. That concentration may be unavoidable in a young market, but it means operational conditions at one exchange carry outsized importance for a strategy intended to contribute to USDe backing.
Same-venue matching reduces one category of basis and settlement risk; it does not eliminate exchange dependence. Liquidity conditions, index construction, margin practices and the availability of the tokenized stock leg all become linked to the venue where the short perpetual is held. The conservative screen is therefore less a broad endorsement of tokenized-equity infrastructure than a recognition that usable liquidity remains uneven.
The 47% off-hours bStocks volume is both the thesis and the risk
Binance reported that bStocks, launched on June 11, 2026, rose from $5.6 million in holdings on day one to more than $100 million within 15 days and generated $458 million in cumulative trading volume. About 47% of that volume took place outside traditional U.S. market hours.
For Ethena, the significance is structural: a long tokenized-equity position and a short equity perpetual need to remain tradable on a 24/7 schedule. Ethena’s risk analysis says U.S. stock markets are closed for roughly 70% of weekly hours. In that interval, equity perpetuals can be priced and liquidated against thin crypto-market index prices before the tokenized-equity hedge can be monetized.
That makes the trade’s market neutrality path-dependent. A single venue can simplify execution, yet it cannot guarantee aligned marks or enough executable depth in the long tokenized asset when the short perpetual comes under margin pressure. The position may therefore incur a forced loss even if the underlying stock later settles in a way consistent with the hedge.
The historical figures are mixed rather than conclusive. Across 37 matched earnings events, the framework recorded average hedged movement of 20.3 basis points against average underlying gaps of 9.9%; the worst event was an 81.7-basis-point loss. Across 400 weekend and holiday windows, average divergence was 14.9 basis points. The average mismatch was limited, but the backtest does not establish stress resilience: USDe’s position sizing, margin and liquidity would have to withstand an unusually poor sequence without undermining its collateral position.
Chart showing realized annualized funding carry for Binance-approved tokenized-equity basis-trade names, including negative carry for SPY and SKHY. — Source: Ethena Governance / Kairos Research
bStocks add issuer and custody exposure to USDe’s collateral stack
The long leg also differs from holding an ordinary share through a traditional broker. Binance says bStocks are certificates issued by BTech Holdings, a Binance-group affiliate, that represent an interest in underlying securities held by the issuer. Holders do not directly own the underlying stock.
That arrangement adds a separate set of exposures to the trading calculation. A USDe backing strategy using bStocks would depend not only on the behavior of an equity perpetual and the price of the underlying share, but also on the issuer structure, custody of the referenced securities, treatment of corporate actions and concentration around the Binance-linked arrangement. Binance’s product description makes clear that the token is a certificate structure rather than direct equity ownership.
That does not make the assets unusable as collateral. It does mean the proposed basis trade combines several risks often considered separately: funding variability, off-hours mark and liquidation risk, exchange concentration, and issuer-and-custody exposure in the tokenized stock itself. The backtests indicate that hedged price divergence has generally been contained, but they also show an 81.7-basis-point worst earnings-event loss before the strategy confronts the additional constraints of a certificate-based collateral instrument.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce said her resignation will take effect on October 2, 2026, ending her tenure at the U.S. securities regulator. The departure will leave SEC Chair Paul Atkins and Commissioner Mark Uyeda as the commission’s remaining members.
Peirce’s October 2 resignation leaves two SEC members
Peirce announced the effective date in a September 25 post on X. Her exit reduces the SEC’s sitting membership to Atkins and Uyeda, according to CoinDesk.
The announcement sets a specific endpoint for Peirce’s service at the agency, where she has been a commissioner since 2018.
Crypto Task Force loses its 2026 leader
Peirce led the SEC’s Crypto Task Force during 2026, a role that made her departure particularly relevant to the agency’s work on crypto assets. The SEC identified her as the task force’s leader in an August statement on crypto-asset regulation.
Her resignation removes the commissioner who held that leadership role, while leaving Atkins and Uyeda as the remaining members of the commission. The available announcements do not specify any successor for Peirce’s task-force position.
Regent University role expected in November
After leaving the SEC, Peirce is expected to join Regent University School of Law as an associate professor in November 2026, Cointelegraph reported.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

SEC Division of Corporation Finance staff on September 25 issued FAQs addressing how federal securities laws may apply to certain crypto assets and transactions, including staking receipt tokens, development work on functional networks and token buyback announcements. The guidance offers a more specific staff framework for features that have repeatedly raised classification questions across the digital-asset market.
The document is not a Commission rule and has no legal force or effect, the Securities and Exchange Commission said. Its treatment depends heavily on the characteristics of the asset or arrangement, particularly whether a network is functional and whether token holders are being led to expect returns from others' managerial efforts.
SEC staff framework
The FAQs are staff views from the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance rather than binding regulations. That distinction matters because the document does not establish a standalone safe harbor or replace the fact-specific analysis that can apply under federal securities law.
Still, the guidance places three common industry practices in a common analytical frame. A token or transaction's treatment can turn on the rights it conveys, the limits imposed on an intermediary holding assets, the operational state of the relevant crypto system and the way a project describes prospective economic benefits to holders.
For a functional crypto system, the staff's discussion focuses on whether remaining work amounts to the sort of essential managerial efforts relevant to the Howey test. The FAQ also distinguishes a simple ownership receipt from an instrument that grants new economic rights or allows its issuer to put the deposited asset to work.
Staking receipts and custody
The SEC said a staking receipt token can be a digital tool when it evidences ownership of an underlying non-security digital commodity. Protocol-based staking receipt tokens, meanwhile, may qualify as digital commodities where their value is derived from a functional crypto system and supply-and-demand dynamics.
The difference is not merely a matter of labeling the instrument a receipt. Under the FAQs, a receipt is an instrument that certifies ownership of deposited assets without altering the holder's rights or providing additional financial incentives.
The issuer's permitted conduct is central to that description. It cannot transfer, lend, pledge, rehypothecate or otherwise use the deposited asset, according to the SEC staff guidance. Those restrictions draw a boundary around an arrangement intended to document ownership rather than create an additional financial product around the deposited tokens.
In practice, that framing separates a receipt tied to an owner's existing asset from structures in which an intermediary may deploy assets or add incentives beyond the underlying ownership claim. The FAQ's distinction between a digital tool and a protocol-based receipt token also ties the latter category to a functional system and market supply-and-demand forces.
Functional-network development
The FAQ addresses a separate concern for crypto projects: whether continued work on a network necessarily represents essential managerial efforts by a promoter or other party. SEC staff said that, for a functional crypto system, securing, maintaining, improving or enhancing the system would not constitute such efforts under Howey.
The same view extends to sponsoring or funding development projects intended to facilitate network effects: when the underlying system is functional, ongoing technical or ecosystem-oriented activity is not, by itself, treated as essential managerial work under the staff's formulation.
The functional-system qualification does considerable work in the guidance. It distinguishes maintenance and development activity around an operating network from circumstances where a system has not reached that state and participants may be relying on others to make it usable or valuable.
Token buybacks
The FAQs apply a similar functional-network distinction to token repurchases. An announcement that a non-security token will be bought back would not constitute a promise of essential managerial efforts when the crypto system is functional, according to the staff's view.
For a non-functional system, however, a buyback announcement could create securities-law concerns if it is presented as generating yield or returns for token holders. The Block separately reported the distinction on September 25.
The announcement’s framing is therefore as important as the repurchase itself: describing a buyback as a holder-return mechanism in connection with a non-functional network can implicate expectations that others will produce an economic benefit. The FAQ does not treat a buyback announcement in a functional system the same way.
Taken together, the staff guidance places custody restrictions, operational functionality and representations about returns at the center of its discussion. For staking receipts, the narrow ownership function remains especially important: the holder's rights cannot change, no additional financial incentive can be attached, and the issuer cannot use the deposited asset.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Evercrest Technologies, the company behind KelpDAO, filed a civil claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on September 25 against LayerZero Labs Ltd., LayerZero Labs Canada Inc. and LayerZero co-founder Bryan Pellegrino.
The case arises from the April rsETH bridge exploit, which involved 116,500 rsETH valued at about $292 million at the time. According to the claim, the allegations include negligent misrepresentation, negligence and defamation and concern the Unichain bridge’s security configuration and LayerZero’s role in reviewing and endorsing it, as reported by Decrypt.
Pellegrino called the lawsuit meritless and said LayerZero will defend it in Vancouver; the allegations have not been established in court.
Evercrest files British Columbia claims
According to The Block, Evercrest's September 25 notice of civil claim names LayerZero Labs Ltd., LayerZero Labs Canada Inc. and Pellegrino as defendants. It seeks to advance claims of negligent misrepresentation, negligence and defamation.
Pellegrino rejected the case in comments reported by The Token Press. He said both he and LayerZero would defend the matter in Vancouver.
The filing places the conduct and statements surrounding the bridge's security design at the center of the dispute, rather than treating the exploit solely as a technical incident.
KelpDAO alleges LayerZero approved 1-of-1 DVN
The exploited Unichain bridge used a 1-of-1 decentralized verifier network (DVN) configuration. That configuration defines the verification arrangement for the cross-chain bridge.
KelpDAO alleges that LayerZero reviewed and endorsed the setup and did not disclose its associated security risks, according to Decrypt.
Available reporting does not establish how the court will assess Evercrest’s claims or LayerZero’s defense.
LayerZero incident report cited compromised infrastructure
The lawsuit concerns an April 18 attack that resulted in the loss of 116,500 rsETH. LayerZero valued the assets at approximately $292 million at the time in its May 18 external incident report.
LayerZero's report attributed the attack to compromised infrastructure and manipulated RPC responses. It said those responses caused LayerZero's DVN to falsely verify a cross-chain transaction.
That account differs from the thrust of Evercrest's suit, which focuses on whether LayerZero had reviewed and endorsed the verifier setup and whether risks were disclosed before the exploit.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Dexsport's casino lists more than 7,500 games, and only 62 of them hold a Provably Fair tag. The ratio, under 1% of the lobby, surprises players who assume they can verify every crypto casino game on-chain.
Provably fair games let the player verify each result mathematically after the round, with seeds that the casino commits to before play begins.
Across a licensed casino lobby, the typical game proves fairness a different way. Studios certify their random number generators through independent test labs, and the player relies on that certification round after round.
Two Ways to Prove a Game Is Fair
Both models aim at the same goal, and they reach it by different routes.

Certified RNG
Provably fair
Who checks
Independent test labs
The player, round by round
When
Before release and in periodic audits
After every round
What you see
A certificate or lab seal
Seed hashes and a verification tool
Where outcomes come from
The studio's game server
A combination of server seed, client seed and a counter
Common in
Branded slots, table games, live casino
Crash games, dice, plinko and similar formats
Each model has its own strength. Lab certification covers the whole game engine and its return figure, while provably fair covers each individual result and lets you check it yourself.
Inside a Provably Fair Round
One simple commitment underpins the whole mechanism, and the casino cannot change it after the fact.
The casino commits. Before play, it picks a private server seed and publishes only its hash, a fingerprint that locks the value in while it stays out of view
You add input. Your client seed, which you can often edit, mixes into the calculation, so the casino cannot choose outcomes alone
Counter: each round adds a nonce, so the same seeds produce a fresh result every time
The seed comes out. A seed rotation exposes the old server seed, and your own hash of it shows whether it matches the fingerprint from step one
You recompute. Plug the seeds and nonce into the published formula, and the result should match the round you played
If any step fails to match, the casino changed something it had already locked in.
Why So Few Licensed Games Qualify
Several practical barriers keep provably fair out of most of a licensed lobby.
Studio servers decide outcomes. Branded slots run on each studio's own remote game server, certified as a whole, and casinos do not control the random number process
Regulation expects lab tests. Licence regimes typically require certified RNGs and approved return figures, a model built around lab audits
Complex games resist simple seeds. A bonus-heavy slot with cascades and free spins draws many random values per spin, which makes a seed system for players harder to design
Live casino uses physical randomness. Real cards, wheels and dice on camera replace digital seeds altogether
Studios gain little from a change. Their games already hold certification accepted across many markets
Provably fair suits simple formats where one calculation decides one result. Crash, dice and plinko games suit it naturally, and several licensed studios, Spribe and BGaming among them, build seed verification into some titles. Game studios differ widely in which formats they offer.
Provably Fair Titles on Dexsport
Dexsport tags 62 of its more than 7,500 games as Provably Fair. Everything else in the lobby, from more than 3,000 slots to hundreds of live tables, relies on the certified RNG and live studio model described above.
The platform does not build its own house games; its arcade and crash titles come from licensed studios. For Dexsport provably fair play, the filter is the place to start for players who want round-by-round verification, and each game's information panel should show the seed controls.
Live dealer tables prove fairness through the stream itself, a model compared in detail in this look at fairness proof across formats. Anjouan licenses the operator, and the game list changes, so check the current tag count in the lobby.
Last verified: September 2026
Conclusion
Provably fair and certified RNGs solve the same problem in different ways. Lab certification tests the whole game before release, while provably fair lets players verify each round through committed seeds.
Licensed lobbies lean heavily on the first model because studio servers, regulation and complex game design all favour lab tests. At Dexsport, 62 of more than 7,500 games hold the Provably Fair tag, mostly in simpler formats.
Players who want to check results themselves should start with that filter. Know the rules where you live, cap each session, and sign up only once you are old enough, since KYC or AML checks may apply. Responsible gambling matters in every format.

Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice. Game counts, tags and features change, so check current details on the platform before you play. Casino games involve risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please play responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

The 2026 Ballon d'Or goes to a vote in London on Monday 26 October, the first time the ceremony leaves Paris in its 70-year history. Harry Kane leads the Ballon d'Or odds, yet the race looks more open than in most recent years.
Ballon d'Or prediction markets sell a Yes or No share on each nominee to win the award, and the price reflects how the crowd expects a panel of journalists to vote.
This detail makes the market unusual. Traders predict the judgement of voters who weigh a season of evidence, not the result of a match.
The 2026 Award in Brief
France Football created the award in 1956, and UEFA has co-organised the ceremony since 2024.
Detail
2026 edition
Ceremony
Monday 26 October 2026, London Palladium
Edition
70th, held in London to honour inaugural winner Stanley Matthews
Assessment period
3 August 2025 to 19 July 2026, World Cup included
Shortlist
30 players for the men's award
Previous winner
Ousmane Dembélé, 2025
Last verified: September 2026
The window closed the day after the World Cup final, so the summer tournament counts in full alongside the club season.
How the Ballon d'Or Vote Shapes the Price
Journalists from the 100 highest-ranked nations in FIFA's list each rank their choices, and the points decide the winner. Since the 2022 reforms, voters weigh individual performances and decisive moments first, then team achievements, and they set a player's wider career aside.
This structure rewards a specific kind of season. Big numbers help, but so do trophies, and a standout World Cup can outweigh months of club form. Prediction market prices try to blend both, which is why a prolific scorer without a major trophy can trade below his statistics.
Prices also move on news that never touches the pitch, such as leaked shortlist reactions or remarks from former winners. Comparisons with football odds on match markets help show how differently an award market reacts.
Five Cases Before the Vote
Each main contender brings a different argument to the panel.
Harry Kane: 61 goals in 51 games for Bayern Munich, a domestic treble, a second European Golden Shoe and England's third place at the World Cup, which makes him the Ballon d'Or 2026 favourite
Rodri: the World Cup Golden Ball after Spain beat Argentina in the final, plus the 2024 Ballon d'Or on his record
Kylian Mbappé: 10 goals at the World Cup, a new all-time record for the tournament
Michael Olise: 31 assists for Bayern, more than any player in world football, and a tournament-high seven at the World Cup
Khvicha Kvaratskhelia: widely seen as the Champions League's standout player, though absent from the World Cup
The balance between Kane's numbers and Spain's World Cup triumph defines the market. Voters who favour trophies may lean toward Rodri, while those who reward output may stay with Kane.
Ballon d'Or Markets on Dexsport
Dexsport lists the Ballon d'Or among its football questions, next to markets on club competitions and Formula 1.
Across Dexsport prediction markets, every shortlisted player has a line of their own, and payouts go out in stablecoins after the announcement. The market page names its close time and resolution source, which for an award like this usually means the announcement at the ceremony itself.
Award markets can stay quiet for weeks, then jump on a single report, so check the live price before you act and read the odds explained basics if prices in cents are new to you. Anjouan's regulator licenses the operator, and its terms can change.
Conclusion
The 2026 Ballon d'Or goes to London on 26 October, judged on performances between August 2025 and July 2026. Harry Kane leads the market after a record season with Bayern Munich, while Rodri, Mbappé, Olise and Kvaratskhelia each bring strong cases.
Because journalists vote on individual form, decisive moments and team success, prices blend statistics with trophies. Spain's World Cup win and Kane's goal tally pull the market in different directions.
Prices will change again before the envelope opens in London. Confirm what your country allows, cap the amount on any award question, and join only if you meet the legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply. Responsible gambling applies to award markets too.
FAQ
Short answers on the 2026 award.
When Is the 2026 Ballon d'Or Ceremony?
London hosts the ceremony on Monday 26 October 2026 at the Palladium, the first time the event has left Paris. The 70th edition honours Stanley Matthews, the award's first winner in 1956. It covers performances from 3 August 2025 to 19 July 2026, so the World Cup counts in full.
Who Leads the 2026 Ballon d'Or Race?
Harry Kane leads most bookmaker lists after 61 goals in 51 games for Bayern Munich, a domestic treble and a second European Golden Shoe. Rodri, Kylian Mbappé, Michael Olise and Khvicha Kvaratskhelia follow. Spain's World Cup win strengthens Rodri's case, so the market remains more open than in recent years.
How Is the Ballon d'Or Winner Decided?
Journalists from the 100 highest-ranked nations in FIFA's list each submit a ranked vote, and the points total decides the winner. Since 2022, voters weigh individual performances and decisive moments first, then team achievements, and they leave a player's career record out of the count. The assessment covers a single season, not a calendar year.


Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice, and nothing here is a betting tip or prediction. Shortlists, odds and market terms change, so check official sources and current market pages before trading. Trading on event outcomes involves risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please participate responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

Magic Eden urged users of its former EVM marketplace to revoke legacy Limit Break Payment Processor V2 approvals on Ethereum, Polygon and Base.
On Sept. 26, Revoke.cash reported at least $2.8 million in NFTs and tokens stolen across Ethereum, Polygon, Base, Arbitrum and ApeChain.
Revoke.cash also reported that white-hat researchers rescued more than 23,000 NFTs valued above $5.7 million. Revoking an approval does not recover assets already transferred, according to TokenPost.
Limit Break V2 exploit reached five networks
Attackers began exploiting a vulnerability in Limit Break Payment Processor V2 on Sept. 24, according to the Revoke.cash Exploit Database. The processor retained permissions granted by users of Magic Eden’s former Ethereum marketplace, turning old approvals into the route used in the attack.
Revoke.cash said the thefts occurred across Ethereum, Polygon, Base, Arbitrum and ApeChain. Its reported $2.8 million loss figure is described as a minimum, while the white-hat recovery operation was led by security researcher 0xQuit.
Even when a listed asset has not been transferred, users with a remaining approval may still need to act; the stolen and rescued totals alone do not establish that every exposed asset was secured.
2024 Magic Eden listings left approvals
The vulnerable processor was used for Magic Eden’s EVM marketplace in 2024. The platform said listings made approximately between February and October 2024 could be affected, while current live Magic Eden listings were not impacted, as reported by Cointelegraph.
The warning is therefore directed at users who interacted with the earlier marketplace rather than at all current Magic Eden activity. Those users should review and revoke Limit Break Payment Processor V2 permissions on Ethereum, Polygon and Base; that step addresses the lingering approval but cannot recover assets already transferred in the exploit.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

The Federal Reserve on September 24 requested public comment on two proposals to implement the GENIUS Act for payment stablecoin issuers supervised by the Board. The proposals would establish prudential standards for those issuers and a separate approval route for insured state-member banks that want to operate stablecoin-issuing subsidiaries, according to the Federal Reserve Board.
Reserve, capital and risk standards
According to the Federal Reserve Board, the proposed framework would require Board-supervised payment stablecoin issuers to maintain full backing with permissible reserve assets, including short-term Treasury bills and other high-quality liquid assets. It would also establish standardized capital and risk-management requirements. Together, the provisions would implement the GENIUS Act’s requirements through a supervisory framework for issuers under the Board’s oversight.
The Fed detailed the reserve, capital and risk-management elements in its proposed-rule document.
Bank subsidiary application process
A separate proposal would create a tailored application process for insured state-member banks seeking approval to establish stablecoin-issuing subsidiaries.
For applications deemed substantially complete, the Federal Reserve said it would generally issue a decision within 120 days. The proposed process is set out in a separate Federal Reserve document.
Federal Register comment deadline
The proposals are not final. The Fed said public comments will be accepted until 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

The European Banking Authority has asked the European Commission to consider broadening the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) to cover crypto-asset lending, access to decentralised finance lending protocols and multi-issuer stablecoin arrangements.
In its response to the Commission’s targeted consultation, published on September 24, 2026, the EBA also identified asset classification and reporting as priorities for the MiCA review. MiCA is the EU’s regulatory framework for crypto-assets and related service providers.
The submission sets out the banking regulator’s recommendations as the Commission considers whether changes to the EU crypto framework are needed. It does not itself alter MiCA or impose new requirements on firms or token issuers.
Crypto lending and DeFi access
The EBA’s consultation response recommended that the European Commission consider amendments to add intermediated crypto borrowing and lending to MiCA’s regulated crypto-asset services.
The authority also proposed requirements for crypto-asset service providers facilitating clients’ access to DeFi lending protocols. Intermediated activity would focus on lending and borrowing through an intermediary, while the separate service-provider proposal concerns access to decentralised lending services.
These are recommendations for the Commission-led MiCA review, not provisions already in force. The response does not establish a final rulebook or implementation dates, so the eventual scope remains open.
Lending safeguards and protocol resilience
The EBA proposed considering suitability tests, leverage limits, enhanced risk disclosures and a possible certification regime for DeFi lending protocols’ resilience against cyberattacks as safeguards for crypto borrowing and lending.
Its approach puts two connected issues before the European Commission: the risks of crypto lending and the role of firms that give customers access to DeFi lending protocols.
These remain potential measures rather than settled standards. Whether they proceed, and in what form, will depend on the wider MiCA review and subsequent legislative choices by EU institutions.
Multi-issuer stablecoin risks
The EBA separately highlighted risks linked to third-country multi-issuer stablecoin schemes. It said such arrangements could pose significant to very significant risks and called for regulatory changes to strengthen the framework governing them, according to the authority’s September 24 announcement.
That concern is distinct from the proposed treatment of lending and DeFi access. It focuses on arrangements involving multiple issuers and third countries, indicating that the EBA sees cross-border stablecoin structures as a separate gap for the MiCA review to examine.
The authority provided a snapshot of authorization activity under MiCA as of September 1, 2026. It said 39 electronic money tokens had been issued under the regulation, while no asset-referenced tokens had been authorized.
Under MiCA, electronic money tokens and asset-referenced tokens are separate categories. The reported figures do not explain why no asset-referenced tokens had been authorized; they instead provide the regulatory backdrop for the EBA’s focus on stablecoin arrangements.
The EBA’s submission places crypto lending, DeFi gateways and multi-issuer stablecoins alongside asset classification and reporting on the Commission’s review agenda. A September 25 financial-regulation update from BBVA Research also listed the authority’s priorities and noted that the response formed part of the Commission’s ongoing MiCA review process.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Market Participants, Market Oversight, and Clearing and Risk divisions updated their crypto-related frequently asked questions on September 24, 2026, addressing tokenized customer-fund investments and the use of blockchain systems for regulatory recordkeeping. The update applies existing CFTC requirements to those technologies rather than creating a broad new authorization for crypto assets or on-chain operations.
In its announcement, the agency said the revised guidance covers questions involving crypto assets and blockchain technologies. For futures commission merchants, derivatives clearing organizations and firms subject to the relevant recordkeeping rules, the practical issue is whether a tokenized instrument or distributed-ledger system can meet rules that were written without prescribing a particular technology.
The answer set out by CFTC staff is conditional. Tokenization does not alter the underlying limits on permissible customer-fund investments, while records held on-chain must remain authentic, reliable, accessible and producible for the regulator.
Tokenized forms of Regulation 1.25 investments
The updated FAQ says futures commission merchants and derivatives clearing organizations may invest customer funds in tokenized forms of investments already permitted under CFTC Regulation 1.25, provided the tokenized form meets the regulation’s requirements, according to a Lowenstein Sandler summary of the guidance. It treats tokenization as a form of an already eligible investment, not a separate category that expands the permitted asset universe.
Blockchain records without an off-chain duplicate
The divisions also addressed whether required books, records and swap data can reside on blockchain or distributed-ledger systems. Staff said CFTC Regulations 1.31 and 45.2 are technology-neutral, meaning those materials may be maintained through blockchain or distributed-ledger technology if the applicable standards for authenticity, reliability, access and production are met.
That position does not require a firm to keep a parallel off-chain copy solely because its records are held on a blockchain. As reported by Unchained, the FAQ says firms using blockchain for CFTC recordkeeping do not have to maintain an off-chain duplicate.
The distinction matters because it recognizes an on-chain recordkeeping architecture without treating the ledger’s existence as sufficient compliance on its own. A system still has to enable the preservation and production of the required information under the CFTC’s rules. In other words, the guidance addresses where records may be maintained, but leaves the regulatory tests for those records in place.
Outage readiness remains the operating constraint
Network outages, block-explorer outages and emergencies are the test case for blockchain-based recordkeeping under the CFTC FAQ. Firms must retain and produce required records through those disruptions, even if the records are maintained on a blockchain.
The FAQ does not require firms to keep an off-chain copy. It does, however, leave the underlying delivery obligation in place when ordinary network conditions or access tools are unavailable.
That makes resilience part of the compliance question for an on-chain-only arrangement: recording information on a distributed ledger is not, by itself, enough if the firm cannot continue to retain and produce the required material.
How the September update builds on the March crypto FAQ
The September revisions build on the CFTC’s original crypto FAQ, issued March 20, 2026. That earlier FAQ was connected to Staff Letter 25-39, concerning tokenized collateral, and Staff Letter 26-05, concerning digital assets accepted as margin collateral, according to the CFTC’s March announcement.
The new material extends that line of staff guidance to two related compliance questions: whether customer funds may be invested in tokenized versions of investments already allowed under Regulation 1.25, and whether required records can be maintained on blockchain infrastructure. In both cases, the updated FAQ retains the underlying regulatory requirements as the governing standard.
The CFTC’s September action therefore provides a clearer application of existing customer-fund and recordkeeping rules to tokenized instruments and distributed-ledger systems. Its operative conditions remain eligibility under Regulation 1.25 for customer-fund investments, and authenticity, reliability, access, production and disruption readiness for records kept on-chain.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Aave V4 on Base has launched an Equities Hub that lets eligible non-U.S. users deposit seven Coinbase tokenized stocks as collateral to borrow USDC. Aave Labs announced the launch on Sept. 25, 2026, extending onchain lending access to the Coinbase-issued equity tokens while limiting them to collateral use at launch.
Aave V4 opens USDC borrowing against seven tokenized stocks
The supported assets are AAPLc, AMZNc, GOOGLc, METAc, MSFTc, NVDAc and TSLAc, corresponding to tokenized exposure to Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla shares. Users can post those assets and borrow USDC through the Base deployment, rather than borrow or lend the tokenized equities themselves.
Chainlink provides pricing data for the assets, according to Aave Labs. The collateral-only design means the initial market does not establish standalone lending pools for the seven equity tokens.
Equities Hub pools collateral behind one USDC reserve
The market uses Aave’s Hub-and-Spoke architecture to pool seven tokenized equities as collateral behind a single USDC reserve.
Aave applies separate risk parameters to each tokenized stock, rather than treating the equities as interchangeable collateral.
According to Aave, the equities were collateral-only at launch and were not available for direct borrowing.
Initial caps and Regulation S eligibility limit the launch
Initial parameters reported by The Block included roughly $29 million in aggregate collateral capacity, a $32 million USDC supply cap and a $21 million USDC borrow cap. Collateral factors were reported to range from 65% to 79%, setting different borrowing capacity depending on the asset deposited.
Access is also restricted. Coinbase Tokenized Stocks are offered under Regulation S to eligible non-U.S. persons in permitted jurisdictions, Aave Labs said. The underlying shares are held in segregated custody by Alpaca Securities LLC, according to the announcement.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Almost half of all UFC fights go to the judges. Title fights change that picture in a specific way: they end inside the distance more often overall, yet less often in the first 15 minutes.
Method-of-victory markets ask how a fight ends, typically by knockout or technical knockout, submission or decision, and pay only if you pick the right outcome and, in some versions, the right fighter.
Three decades of results shape those markets. Below: how fights end, why five-round fights behave differently, and how weight class shifts the numbers.
How UFC Fights End
One study of 8,591 UFC bouts, from 1994 to late March 2026, sets a clear baseline for the UFC method of victory.
Outcome
Share of bouts
Detail
Decision
46.8%
3,098 unanimous, 818 split and 100 majority decisions
KO or TKO
32.6%
Doctor stoppages included
Submission
19.3%
Chokes and joint locks
Finishes together account for 51.9%, close to a coin flip, which puts the overall UFC finish rate at almost exactly half. This balance explains why method-of-victory prices rarely lean heavily one way without a strong reason, such as a fighter with a long record of knockouts.
The round matters too. Across all finishes, 52.9% came in round one, 30.4% in round two and 14.9% in round three. Rounds four and five account for only 85 finishes, about 1.8% of the total, and nearly all of those came in title fights.
Title Fights Behave Differently
Championship bouts last five rounds, or 25 minutes, against three rounds for most other fights. The extra time reshapes the method market.
More finishes overall: title bouts end early 57.4% of the time across their full length, against 51.6% for non-title fights
Fewer early finishes: inside the first 15 minutes, title fights finish only 46.7% of the time, against 51.1% for other bouts
Late rounds matter: rounds four and five give strikers and grapplers extra time to break down a tired opponent
Champions tend to last: fighters who reach a title shot usually have the durability to survive early danger
Put simply, a title fight is more likely to end by stoppage, but the stoppage tends to come later. Round-based markets and early-finish markets price that shift differently from a plain method market.
Weight Class Moves the Numbers
Division changes the method picture as much as the title does.
Heavyweight: the highest finish rate among divisions with at least 100 bouts, at 66.1%, with knockouts close to half of all outcomes
Middleweight and light heavyweight: knockout power still leads, with finishes spread more evenly across methods
Flyweight: more than half of bouts go to the judges, and submissions run higher than in any other men's division
Women's strawweight: knockouts account for only about 13.6% of bouts, the lowest rate in the UFC
Heavyweight and flyweight title fights share the five-round format and very little else. Check the division before the method price.
MMA Markets on Dexsport
Dexsport lists five Dexsport MMA market types in its sportsbook rules, and each maps to a question covered above.
Fight winner: the straightforward result
Win method: knockout, submission, decision, disqualification or other
Early win: whether a fighter wins before the final bell
Fight duration: the number of rounds the bout lasts
Round winner: who takes a given round
Win method and fight duration hold the most information for title fights, where the late-round pattern matters. UFC markets vary widely across crypto sportsbooks.
Each book also builds price margins into its lines. Stake limits on Dexsport depend on the event tier, and Anjouan licenses the operator, so check the current terms before a fight.
Last verified: September 2026
Conclusion
UFC fights split close to evenly between finishes and decisions: 46.8% of 8,591 bouts went to the judges, 32.6% ended by knockout and 19.3% by submission.
Title fights shift that balance. Across five rounds, they finish more often than other bouts, yet less often inside the first 15 minutes, so late stoppages count for more. Weight class matters just as much, from heavyweight's 66.1% finish rate to women's strawweight's low knockout share.
Check local law, set a stake limit before fight night, and wager only if you are of legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply. Responsible gambling matters most on long-shot method prices.


Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice, and nothing here is a betting tip or prediction. Statistics describe historical results and do not predict any single fight. Market types, limits and terms change, so check current details on the platform before you bet. Sports wagers involve risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please play responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

Gold reached a record in January 2026, and Tether Gold followed it to a peak of $5,528 on 29 January before a slide to about $4,430 by early September. This swing defines any gold bankroll.
Tether Gold (XAUt) is a gold-backed token, and each one stands for one fine troy ounce held in Swiss vaults. It trades around the clock and moves with the gold price.
At a crypto casino, that makes XAUt something between a stablecoin and a volatile coin. The balance holds real-world value, yet it still rises and falls in dollar terms.
What One XAUt Represents
Tether's affiliate TG Commodities Limited launched the token in 2020, and its structure explains both its appeal and its limits.
Reserve: one fine troy ounce of LBMA-grade gold per token, stored in Swiss vaults
Size of the float: about 707,700 ounces backed the supply in 2026, a market value near $2.7 billion in early September
Divisibility: tokens split down to 0.000001 ounce, so small deposits work
Networks: issued on Ethereum under the ERC-20 standard and on Tron under TRC-20
Oversight: quarterly assurance reports from BDO, not full audits
Redemption: physical delivery only in whole bars of roughly 430 ounces in Switzerland, with a 0.25% fee and identity checks
For casino players, the last point matters most. Market sales offer the practical exit, since physical redemption suits only very large holders.
Three Kinds of Bankroll Compared
Each asset brings a different risk while the balance waits between sessions.
Bankroll asset
Tracks
2026 movement
Suits
USDT or USDC
The US dollar
Held close to $1
Players who want a fixed value
XAUt
Gold
Down about 20% from its January peak by September, up about 27% over twelve months
Players who already hold gold exposure
Bitcoin
Bitcoin itself
From below $62,000 in June to about $86,000 in late September
Players comfortable with sharp swings
Gold moves less violently than Bitcoin in most years, but 2026 shows it can still drop a fifth from a peak within months. Volatile coins change a balance's dollar value even when every bet breaks even, and XAUt behaves the same way at a gentler pace.
One Deposit, Two Gold Prices
Suppose an XAUt casino deposit of 0.1 token goes in when gold stands near $4,430 an ounce, a balance worth about $443.
If the player breaks even at the tables and gold falls 5%, the same 0.1 XAUt comes back worth about $421. If gold rises 5%, it returns about $465. The result at the tables stays flat either way, yet the withdrawal value moves by more than $20 in each direction.
This trade-off lies at the heart of the choice. Anyone who wants the casino balance to measure play alone will prefer a dollar stablecoin, while a gold holder may simply want to skip a sale first.
XAUt at the Dexsport Cashier
Dexsport lists Ethereum XAUt only, one gold option within a long multi-chain cashier. Deposits go to an Ethereum address, so XAUt held on Tron needs to move to Ethereum before a transfer, or it may never credit.
Ethereum gas costs vary with network traffic, which makes larger, less frequent XAUt deposits more efficient than small ones. The platform may quote stakes, limits and promotions in dollars, so see how it displays a gold balance before the first wager.
Prediction markets on the platform settle in stablecoins, so confirm on the board whether XAUt counts as an eligible balance for that product. The operator's licence comes from Anjouan, and its cashier list changes over time.
Conclusion
XAUt lets a player hold a casino balance in gold, one troy ounce per token, backed by bars in Swiss vaults. It suits people who already want gold exposure and prefer to keep it through the whole session.
The trade-off is movement. XAUt fell about 20% from its January 2026 peak by September, so a break-even session can still end with a different withdrawal value.
On Dexsport, send XAUt only on Ethereum. Confirm the law where you live, fix how much gold you commit, and sign up only once you are of legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply. Responsible gambling matters, regardless of which asset funds the account.


Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice. Gold prices, token supply figures, network support and platform terms change, so check current details before you transfer. Crypto transfers can be irreversible. Casino games and sports wagers involve risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please play responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

Rockstar settled one of the biggest GTA 6 questions on 24 June: the GTA 6 price on consoles is $79.99, and the Ultimate Edition price is $99.99. Two related questions remain open, and both now trade as prediction markets.
GTA 6 prediction markets on price and specs ask what the PC edition will cost and what hardware it will demand, since Rockstar has not announced either.
The console details offer the clearest clues. Below are the confirmed facts, why a console price market has little left to decide, and how GTA 6 PC specs markets tend to read.
Rockstar's Confirmed Details
Pre-orders opened at midnight on 25 June 2026, and the official details now cover almost everything except PC.
Item
Confirmed detail
Standard Edition
$79.99, or £69.99 in the UK
Ultimate Edition
$99.99, with extra vehicles, weapons and apparel
Upgrade path
Standard to Ultimate for $20 at any time
Launch
19 November 2026 on PS5, PS5 Pro, Xbox Series X and Series S
Pre-load
From 12 November 2026
Physical copies
A download code in a box, without a disc
Pre-order bonus
Vintage Vice City Pack for purchases before 20 November
PC version
Unannounced, with no date, price or specs
The $79.99 figure moved GTA 6 $10 above the $69.99 standard of the current console generation. It also came in well below the $100 base price that many fans had feared after months of rumours.
The Console Price Question Is Already Settled
Markets on the US console price of the Standard Edition lost their uncertainty the day Rockstar announced $79.99. Any market with that exact phrase has either resolved already or trades at a price close to certain.
Live price questions therefore tend to concern something else, usually the PC edition. Rockstar has priced PC versions of earlier games in line with consoles, although storefronts and regional price lists can create differences.
Before you trade, read the question carefully. The phrase "the launch price" might mean the console Standard Edition, the PC Standard Edition or a specific storefront, and each of those resolves differently. Implied odds only make sense once you know what the market really wants to know.
Four Ways a Specs Market Can Read
GTA 6 system requirements markets can resolve on very different details, and the exact terms decide everything.
Threshold: will the minimum RAM requirement reach 16GB or more?
Storage: will the listed install size exceed a set number of gigabytes?
Component: will the recommended graphics card come from a particular product tier?
Date: will Rockstar publish official PC requirements before a given date?
Each version resolves on Rockstar's official requirements, not on leaks, benchmarks or retailer listings. For reference, Red Dead Redemption 2 listed 150GB of storage when it reached PC in 2019, a rough baseline for the size of Rockstar's open worlds.
Different platforms can still price the same question in different ways, and different odds for identical outcomes are common across books and boards.
GTA 6 Questions on Dexsport
Dexsport prediction markets include a trio of GTA 6 questions under the Other tab. They ask when the PC edition comes out, what hardware it needs, and what the game costs at launch.
Each trades as Yes and No shares in cents, and positions settle in stablecoins. Across Dexsport prediction markets, the page states the exact question, deadline, and resolution source, which matters especially here, since console details are already public.
One Rockstar Newswire post can reprice these questions within minutes, so look at the current figure first. Anjouan issues the platform's licence, and its terms can change.
Conclusion
Rockstar has confirmed GTA 6 at $79.99 for the Standard Edition and $99.99 for the Ultimate Edition, with the console release set for 19 November on Sony and Microsoft's current machines. Rockstar has not given a date, price or hardware requirements for the PC edition.
The PC therefore becomes the focus of any live price or specs market. Read the terms closely, since a console price question has little left to resolve while PC questions stay open.
Treat every price as a snapshot. Know what your country allows, limit your stake, and join only if you meet the legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply. Responsible gambling covers entertainment markets as much as sport.


Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice. Game details, prices and market terms can change, so check official Rockstar sources and current market pages before trading. Trading on event outcomes involves risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please participate responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.