The Cryptonomist

Liquid Network’s bitcoin redemptions remained suspended on October 11, 2026, 35 days after an exploit drained its reserves. Transfers were working again, but holders still could not redeem L-BTC for bitcoin: reserves covered about 85.8% of the outstanding tokens.
Key takeaways
Liquid’s reserve deficit stood at approximately 602.53 BTC.
Transfers resumed on September 10, 2026; bitcoin withdrawals remained frozen.
Reopening requires full backing, software upgrades and completed security reviews.
Per quanto riportato da The Defiant, on October 11, 2026 the Liquid explorer run by Mempool showed federation reserves holding 3,632.23 BTC while 4,234.76 L-BTC remained in circulation. The report calculated the resulting shortfall at about 602.53 BTC.
Liquid Network’s bitcoin redemptions await full backing
Liquid requires one bitcoin in reserve for every L-BTC before restoring redemptions, known as peg-outs. Software updates, testing and independent security reviews must also be complete.
The Bitcoin sidechain uses a federation whose members jointly control the reserve through multisig. Users lock bitcoin with that federation and receive L-BTC, designed for one-for-one redemption.
Normal block production and user transactions restarted on September 10, 2026, allowing holders to send and receive L-BTC within the network. That restoration did not reopen Liquid Network’s bitcoin redemptions.
Crypto Briefing reported that approximately 3,996 to 4,000 BTC, worth around $320 million at the time, left the reserve during the exploit. It put holdings before the drain at roughly 4,205 BTC and their crisis low at 197 BTC. Other assets issued on Liquid, including USDT and tokenized real-world assets, were not disrupted and returned to normal operations.
Elements validation failure addressed in software alongside key updates
Blockstream’s September 23, 2026 incident assessment traced the exploit to a validation failure in Elements’ cache of previously verified cryptographic proofs. The September 6, 2026 attack caused the software to accept an invalid transaction, creating roughly 4,000 unbacked L-BTC.
Those tokens were redeemed for bitcoin through the standard peg-out process via federation member SideSwap. Blockstream said that process trusted the sidechain’s validated state instead of performing a separate reserve check.
The Elements v23.3.4 release strengthens the range-proof cache keys and provides an option to disable the cache. Liquid’s September 29, 2026 update said an independent external security audit of that release was underway to help validate the safe restoration of peg-outs.
The federation was also replacing entries in its peg-out authorization key list and securing peg-out keys in cold storage. The corroborating report said neither federation members’ signing keys nor SideSwap’s Peg-out Authorization Key had been compromised.
Asset recovery continues without ransom payments
On September 7, 2026, roughly 3,400 BTC was returned, though Blockstream’s incident assessment indicated that around 602 BTC remained subject to ongoing recovery efforts. The corroborating report attributed the returned funds to white-hat actors.
Blockstream CEO Adam Back assured stakeholders that the one-for-one peg would ultimately be covered, according to the corroborating report. Full reserve backing remains a condition for reopening withdrawals, alongside the technical safeguards.
“Blockstream will not pay a ransom for the return of stolen funds,” the company said on September 11, 2026. The company stated it would collaborate with law enforcement agencies, exchanges and forensic experts in an effort to trace and recover the funds.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Following accusations that the Hyperliquid prices powering its exchange were being manipulated, Papertrade has moved to tighten its trading limits. On October 11, 2026, the platform announced it had started limiting new trading exposure, affecting both onchain activity and transactions routed through relayers that send user instructions to the blockchain.
Key takeaways
Papertrade’s restrictions target new exposure, not confirmed wallet-specific closing bans.
Synthetic BTC and ETH trades offer leverage of up to 1000x.
A cited wallet recorded about $1.28 million in realized trading gains.
PaperDash showed a $4.30 million pool with no queued payout debt.
According to The Defiant, the platform’s response concerns how much exposure traders can open against its own pool. Its statement does not confirm claims that a particular wallet was blacklisted or prevented from closing positions.
Papertrade’s trading limits target new exposure
The tighter controls apply both to the blockchain contracts and to the approved relayers used during the exchange’s restricted launch. According to the team, unusually loose exposure limits set at launch were behind the alleged manipulation attempts.
Under the rollout plan, users submit trades through the website and approved relayers rather than interacting directly with trading contracts. The plan described transaction ordering as “always indiscriminate of user/account,” while permitting changes to priority weightings.
The published market-freeze mechanism allows existing positions to close using the paused midpoint price. It is not described as a wallet-specific prohibition on closing trades.
How synthetic BTC and ETH trades use Hyperliquid prices
Papertrade offers synthetic BTC and ETH positions with up to 1000x leverage, using the midpoint between Hyperliquid’s highest buying quote and lowest selling quote. The counterparty is a protocol-owned pool, not another trader.
The protocol does not execute a matching perpetual trade on Hyperliquid. Instead, it records the reference price when a position opens and calculates profit or loss against the updated price when it closes.
Crypto.news reported that Boblob (@Dr_bobo54) alleged two wallets placed approximately $20 million each in Hyperliquid trades, moving ETH quotes by 0.1%–0.2%, while holding Papertrade long positions with a combined nominal value in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
That report distinguished Papertrade’s midpoint pricing from Hyperliquid’s own oracle and mark-price systems. Hyperliquid uses its mark price for unrealized profit and loss, margin requirements and liquidations; Papertrade’s synthetic contracts reference the order-book midpoint.
Multisig controls and the money available for payouts
Papertrade’s administrative powers sit with two-of-three multisigs comprising @izebel_eth, @blurr and @UngusTrade. Among the tools available to them are pausing new positions, freezing markets, configuring relayers, and adjusting opening headroom—all measures tied to tightening Papertrade’s trading limits.
Money available to pay profitable trades remains separate from customer collateral. According to administrator @izebel_eth, losses realized by traders go into the pool, whereas profits that cannot be covered right away are placed in a payout queue, with closing a profitable trade returning the trader’s original collateral while only the outstanding gain joins that queue.
This distinction also applies to deposit totals. Ahead of the October 10 opening, DefiLlama tracked approximately $85.3 million in deposits, including both customer balances and the house-side pool, as reported by crypto.news. That figure was not solely the reserve available to pay winners.
PaperDash’s October 11 snapshot put the pool at about $4.30 million, compared with $3.14 million in the earlier report. Both snapshots showed no queued payout debt.
Cited wallet recorded $1.28 million in trading profits
The wallet ending in 840e showed approximately $1.28 million in cumulative realized trading profit on PaperDash. Pseudonymous observer El33 linked the wallet to the alleged strategy; the recorded profit itself does not establish manipulation.
The platform separately said one user had lost almost all earlier profits through new accounts. The cited wallet’s realized gains stood below the approximately $1.73 million recorded in the earlier report, and its dashboard showed no open positions or queued profits.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Europe’s markets regulator is seeking evidence on the safe use of tokenised collateral in EU central clearing, including a practical test: can clearinghouses access it and turn it into liquidity when a clearing member defaults? The consultation examines the conditions under which EU central counterparties, or CCPs, can use these assets safely and effectively.
Key takeaways
The consultation tests tokenised collateral’s usability during member defaults.
Digital twins, directly issued assets and hybrid models are in scope.
Existing collateral safeguards must remain intact.
Submissions close on January 15, 2027.
In a press release dated October 11, 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) said its inquiry covers collateral transfer, management, protection and use. It described tokenisation as moving beyond testing into financial-market operations, with collateral mobilisation particularly relevant to central clearing.
Consultation examines tokenised collateral in EU clearing
The call for evidence seeks to establish how tokenised arrangements function in practice and how the existing framework can accommodate them. Feedback will inform the authority’s choice of regulatory or supervisory convergence action within its remit.
Chair Verena Ross linked the consultation to the goal of enabling tokenisation to develop safely and at scale across the Single Market. She said cross-border tokenised markets need legal certainty, interoperable infrastructure and appropriate supervision, while highlighting their potential to improve efficiency and integration.
Collateral must remain usable through a default
The review asks how tokenisation affects the entire collateral lifecycle, particularly when a clearing member defaults. Respondents are asked to address clearinghouses’ ability to obtain the assets, move them and convert them into liquidity when required.
Klaus Löber, Chair of the authority’s CCP Supervisory Committee, stressed that technological changes must leave fundamental safeguards intact. Collateral must retain high quality, legal enforceability, strong liquidity and ready operational availability, including during stressed conditions and after a member default.
The inquiry also seeks views on changes to the risk profile of collateral that is already eligible. Cointelegraph reported that the consultation asks about redemption-related delays, transfer restrictions and whether token transfers provide ownership of, or enforceable rights to, underlying assets.
Digital twins and ledger-issued assets face scrutiny
Within its scope, the consultation examines digital twins—tokenised versions of assets that remain in conventional infrastructure—alongside assets created natively on distributed ledger technology, plus hybrid models and how these interact with tokenised cash and other settlement assets.
For tokenised collateral in EU markets, the review examines how distributed ledgers connect with conventional infrastructure while preserving client protection, segregation and settlement finality. The corroborating report identifies stablecoins, central bank money and tokenised deposits among the settlement assets under examination.
Live clearing use provides the backdrop
The report notes that tokenisation has moved into active European clearing operations, driven by banks and investors seeking quicker access to securities to meet margin requirements. In July 2025, Eurex Clearing launched a collateral service built on distributed ledger technology, with JPMorgan completing its inaugural live transaction by transferring securities from a separate custody location on behalf of Dutch pension investor PGGM.
The report also connects the consultation to the Eurosystem’s September launch of Pontes, which enables tokenised asset transactions to settle using central bank money. It reports that the authority identified Pontes as a potential link between blockchain infrastructure and existing settlement systems for collateral arrangements.
Stakeholders can submit contributions through the authority’s consultation webpage until January 15, 2027. Responses will be published after the consultation closes unless respondents request otherwise. The authority will evaluate feedback in the first quarter of 2027, alongside its wider tokenisation work, before determining the appropriate course of action.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

A genetic mutation and a cholesterol marker can change the treatment question for an individual patient. Flahy Inc. is using knowledge graphs in healthcare to connect those biological details with clinical information and support more personalized decisions about prevention and treatment, according to founder and chief executive officer Jagjit Singh.
Key takeaways
Flahy links biological and clinical information to support individualized care decisions.
Neo4j supports its graph technology work alongside proprietary decision engines.
Wearable readings pose a challenge for tracking health changes within graphs.
In an interview reported by SiliconANGLE on October 11, 2026, Singh described a knowledge layer that connects patient data with AI models. He spoke with host John Furrier for the theCUBE + NYSE Wired: AI Luminaries series, explaining how the company uses relationships among data points to help determine a person’s next clinical step.
How Flahy uses knowledge graphs in healthcare
Flahy brings biological and clinical information into a graph so its models can recognize relationships relevant to an individual’s care. Singh said the team has spent years building its graph-based database and training the model to identify those connections.
“The knowledge layer is very critical because it connects your data layer to your model layer and it tells the model exactly what facts matter and what a specific data point implies,” Singh said.
The application is personalized clinical decision support: determining which treatment route fits a person’s biological markers and mutations. Singh illustrated the approach with a hypothetical patient who has both a genetic mutation and a particular high-cholesterol marker. A new clinical signal would raise the question of how those existing details affect treatment selection.
For Flahy, applying knowledge graphs to healthcare means connecting that wider biological context to a decision tree for the individual.
Neo4j collaboration and proprietary decision engines
Flahy works with graph technology companies, including Neo4j Inc., and has built its own engines to address clinical decision-making within graphs, Singh said. He described the underlying task as a traversal problem—working through the graph’s connections to support a care decision.
“We have created our own proprietary engines,” he said. His account links that development to the challenge of connecting information across different data types, including health readings collected over time.
Longitudinal data is a particular difficulty. Wearable-device readings need to sit alongside other health information in a graph that allows the system to interpret changes over time.
“When it comes to longitudinal data, you have to find a way to put it in a specific graph,” Singh said. He described this as a challenge the company is working to solve by connecting separate modalities.
Consumer guidance and clinical deployment
FlahyLife, the company’s consumer offering, combines biological and health information to guide prevention, early detection and treatment selection. It applies the company’s approach to identifying next steps for an individual.
Flahy is also working with clinical laboratories and health systems and trying to deploy its platform to improve clinical decision-making and close care gaps, according to Singh. He described the aim as connecting the graph to help match people with the appropriate test at the appropriate time.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Condé Nast and Hearst were among 300 publishers pressing Congress for AI bot scraping regulation, in a lobbying effort reported on September 30, 2026. Their target: unidentified bots that collect website content without disclosure. The publishers support a bipartisan bill that would require those bots to identify themselves and their purposes—or face civil penalties.
Key takeaways
The publisher campaign backs mandatory disclosure for content-scraping bots.
The Stealth Bot Prohibition Act proposes federal penalties and attorney general enforcement.
Several participating publishers also have paid AI content-licensing agreements.
According to Mashable, executives associated with Esquire, Cosmopolitan, Vogue and Vanity Fair were lobbying in Washington for the Stealth Bot Prohibition Act. The News/Media Alliance supports the legislation, arguing that disguised bots hurt publishers’ ability to serve readers and protect their content.
Publishers press Congress for AI bot scraping regulation
The publishers’ campaign seeks federal rules against undisclosed scraping, with the News/Media Alliance calling for transparency and accountability as AI affects website traffic, search and discoverability.
At the bill’s introduction, Danielle Coffey, president of the alliance, said technical defenses were insufficient against bots that conceal their identities.
“We are drowning in bot traffic that is hurting our ability to serve our readers, and existing technical tools simply aren’t enough to protect our content from malicious actors that can disguise their identity,” Coffey said.
Debi Chirichella, president of Hearst Magazines, described the legislation as a step toward a “clean internet.” Roger Lynch, CEO of Condé Nast, accused AI companies of using disguised bots to take original journalism without accountability. The campaign brings together publishers of titles including Esquire, Cosmopolitan, Vogue and Vanity Fair.
What the Stealth Bot Prohibition Act would require
The bill would require scraping bots to disclose their identities and purposes to website publishers. Failure to do so would expose them to civil penalties enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.
Introduced in the House in July, the bipartisan proposal targets “stealth bots”—unidentified AI agents deployed to scrape and index website content without disclosure. It would also authorize attorneys general to take enforcement action against AI scraping.
The proposed AI bot scraping regulation therefore centers on disclosure, with both federal civil penalties and attorney general enforcement included in the bill.
Licensing agreements sit alongside the push for disclosure
Among publishers advocating for stronger protections, some have simultaneously struck agreements to profit from their content being used for AI training and search purposes, with these arrangements involving OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Meta and Amazon.
In 2024, Condé Nast established a multi-year collaboration with OpenAI. Content licensing deals with the AI company were also finalized by Associated Press, The Atlantic and TIME. OpenAI secured licensing agreements with both The Guardian and Axios, and separately the Washington Post arranged for its original journalism to appear within ChatGPT.
In January 2025, Google finalized its inaugural AI licensing deal, partnering with the Associated Press. The Associated Press, People Inc. and USA Today Co. have each entered into agreements with Microsoft.
A multi-year licensing and training agreement covering seven publishers—among them CNN and Fox News—was reached by Meta. The New York Times, Condé Nast and Hearst are among the publishers that reached agreements with Amazon.
Legal challenges have accompanied those commercial arrangements. In April 2025, Ziff Davis, the parent company of the primary report’s publisher, filed a lawsuit against OpenAI alleging copyright infringement in the training and operation of its AI systems.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Ledger has asked Southeast Asian reseller CryptoBilis to halt device sales and shipments as it investigates wallet losses that Bitquery estimates at $92.9 million across 311 wallets. The reported $93 million Ledger exploit came to light on October 9, 2026, but the available evidence does not establish a breach of the hardware wallet maker’s core infrastructure.
Key takeaways
Ledger’s investigation centers on devices purchased through CryptoBilis.
Bitquery’s loss estimate spans five blockchain networks.
Ledger issued precautions for CryptoBilis purchases made within the previous 90 days.
Blockchain tracing and forensic analysis remain underway.
U.Today reports that CryptoBilis holds official distributor status across Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. Ledger’s response focuses on customers who bought hardware wallets through that reseller.
Tracing Ledger’s reported $93 million exploit
Bitquery calculated the reported losses across Bitcoin, Ethereum, TRON, BNB Chain and Polygon. Its estimate followed initial figures above $72 million and a separate assessment by blockchain investigator Specter that put losses above $86 million.
Specter traced suspicious addresses receiving funds from hundreds of wallets on Ethereum, TRON and Bitcoin. According to Bitquery’s analysis, small test transfers took place for roughly two weeks prior to the main outflows, after which coordinated movements occurred across multiple networks.
Researchers also found groups of wallets approving similar requests only seconds apart. Those patterns suggested preparation and a shared point of control.
A reseller-focused investigation and a hardware finding
Nothing in the evidence currently available confirms that a breach occurred within Ledger’s core infrastructure. In reporting published by TheStreet and carried by Yahoo Finance, the company said the information available pointed to an incident isolated to CryptoBilis in Southeast Asia; it also said its infrastructure, systems and services were not compromised.
The company told TheStreet that it had received no reports involving products purchased directly from Ledger.
Binance founder Changpeng Zhao assessed the incident as a localized supply-chain problem involving one vendor. He also urged industry participants to assist with tracing and recovering the assets. His assessment was separate from Ledger’s investigative findings.
Former Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpelès shared photographs of a Ledger Nano X he said had arrived from Malaysia. He described apparently intact shrink-wrap but reported finding a concealed electronic module in the space normally occupied by screen padding.
Karpelès requested photographs from affected customers to help identify similar hardware modifications.
Ledger’s instructions for CryptoBilis customers
Ledger asked CryptoBilis to stop all sales and shipments while the investigation proceeds. Its customer guidance applies to devices purchased from the reseller during the previous 90 days.
Customers who have not set up their devices were told not to initialize them. For those who had already finished the setup process, the recommendation was to move their holdings to a new Ledger signer with a new seed phrase.
The company said it would provide customers with updates as its investigation advances.
Forensic work and asset tracing continue
Further forensic analysis and blockchain tracing are underway to clarify the cause and support asset recovery. Investigators examining Ledger’s reported $93 million exploit have tracked coordinated transfers and suspicious receiving addresses across multiple networks.
Bitquery’s analysis documented small test transactions over approximately two weeks before the main wallet outflows.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

ASML Holding stock retains a bullish daily bias, but the hourly chart does not confirm it. The completed session ended above all three daily exponential averages, while shorter-term price positioning remains less supportive. The central question is whether daily support can hold while price clears the overhead hourly averages.
ASML — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
ASML closed at $1780.34 on Friday, October 9, 2026, above the daily 20-session EMA ($1771.59), 50-session EMA ($1744.24), and 200-session EMA ($1549.15).
Daily RSI14 is 52.44, above neutral; the MACD histogram is 2.67, down from 6.37 on October 8.
Hourly RSI14 is 42.41, below neutral 50, with a negative MACD histogram of -0.24.
The close sits below the next-session daily pivot ($1794.64) and below the hourly 20-hour EMA ($1795.45) and 50-hour EMA ($1803.73).
Daily ATR14 is $51.83; daily first resistance is $1811.27 and daily first support is $1763.70.
On Friday, October 9, 2026, ASML opened at $1819.14, traded between a low of $1778.00 and a high of $1825.57, and closed at $1780.34, against a previous close of $1769.79. The session gained 0.6% versus the previous close, despite ending below its opening price. Prices and technical indicators are from Twelve Data.
ASML Holding stock retains its daily bullish structure
The close stands above the 20-session EMA at $1771.59, the 50-session EMA at $1744.24, and the 200-session EMA at $1549.15. Price and these averages are bullishly aligned. The close sits above the session low of $1778 and above the 20-session average at $1771.59, making that area important to the bullish case.
Meanwhile, daily RSI14 stands at 52.44, above neutral but below overbought territory. The MACD line at 26.47 is above its signal at 23.81, with a positive histogram of 2.67. However, the histogram declined to 2.67 from 6.37 on October 8. The daily momentum evidence therefore remains positive, but it is not uniformly supportive.
The daily Bollinger midpoint is $1744.55, below the close, with the upper band at $1918.16 and the lower band at $1570.94. Price is above the midpoint without reaching the upper band. Daily ATR14 reads $51.83, providing a volatility reference rather than a directional signal. When trading resumes, the daily pivot for the next session is $1794.64, with first resistance at $1811.27 and first support at $1763.70.
Hourly weakness complicates the daily view
In contrast, the session close sits below the hourly 20-hour EMA at $1795.45 and 50-hour EMA at $1803.73. It remains above the 200-hour EMA at $1770.71. Hourly RSI14 is 42.41, below neutral, while the MACD line at -12.19 sits below its signal at -11.95. The histogram of -0.24 confirms that negative line-to-signal relationship.
The close also sits below the hourly Bollinger midpoint at $1794.32, but above the lower band at $1756.62. The upper band is $1832.02. Together, these levels place the close in the lower half of the hourly envelope. The hourly pivot for the next session is $1781.81, with first resistance at $1785.63 and first support at $1777.63.
15-minute chart adds execution context
For execution context, the 15-minute chart has a bearish alignment. The close is below the 20-period EMA at $1783.68, the 50-period EMA at $1790.95, and the 200-period EMA at $1802.76. RSI14 is 44.69, below neutral. Nevertheless, the MACD line at -2.36 is above its signal at -2.79, producing a positive histogram of 0.43. That local positive reading does not override the daily-hourly conflict. The 15-minute pivot for the next session is $1780.93, with first resistance at $1783.86 and first support at $1778.51.
Earnings coverage frames the uncertainty around ASML
Meanwhile, Yahoo Finance coverage published during Friday’s session highlighted AI-driven demand and strategic partnerships alongside premium valuation and policy risks. A Seeking Alpha earnings preview published during the session argued that high expectations may be justified, citing memory demand and leading-edge logic spending. These are editorial assessments, not confirmation from the chart.
A Yahoo Finance report published after Friday’s close pointed to the October 14 earnings report and questioned ASML’s valuation. Its publication belongs after the completed session and should not be treated as an explanation for that session’s price action.
Bullish and bearish scenarios for ASML Holding stock
The bullish case requires ASML Holding stock to hold the daily 20-session EMA at $1771.59. Clearing the next-session daily pivot at $1794.64 would strengthen that case. Above it, the hourly averages at $1795.45 and $1803.73 form further hurdles before daily first resistance at $1811.27. Acceptance above those levels would provide the hourly confirmation currently missing.
Conversely, a break below the daily 20-session EMA at $1771.59 would weaken the bullish case. The hourly 200-hour EMA at $1770.71 comes next, followed by daily first support at $1763.70. A sustained break beneath that support would invalidate the near-term bullish scenario. The daily Bollinger midpoint at $1744.55 and 50-session EMA at $1744.24 would then become the next lower reference levels.
Overall, ASML stands above daily trend support but below the next-session daily pivot and key hourly averages. Daily ATR14 of $51.83 keeps volatility relevant to those boundaries. The unresolved issue is whether hourly resistance can be cleared without sacrificing the daily support structure.
FAQ
Where did ASML close on Friday, October 9?
ASML closed at $1780.34, gaining 0.6% from the previous close. The session ranged between a low of $1778 and a high of $1825.57.
What does the daily chart show for ASML Holding stock?
The close stands above the 20-session EMA ($1771.59), 50-session EMA ($1744.24), and 200-session EMA ($1549.15). Daily RSI14 is 52.44, above neutral, and the MACD line is above its signal with a positive histogram of 2.67.
What are the key support and resistance levels?
Daily first support is $1763.70, with the daily 20-session EMA at $1771.59 and the hourly 200-hour EMA at $1770.71 nearby. Daily first resistance is $1811.27, with the next-session daily pivot at $1794.64 and hourly averages at $1795.45 and $1803.73 forming intermediate hurdles.
What does the hourly chart indicate?
The close is below the 20-hour EMA ($1795.45) and 50-hour EMA ($1803.73) but above the 200-hour EMA ($1770.71). Hourly RSI14 is 42.41, below neutral, and the hourly MACD histogram is negative at -0.24.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Cryptonomist and the author hold no positions in the financial instruments mentioned and receive no compensation from the companies covered.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

American Express stock retains a bearish daily bias, despite more constructive hourly positioning. The completed session ended below all three daily exponential averages. Positive MACD divergence from its signal offers a counterweight, but the shorter-term charts do not establish a bullish daily trend.
AXP — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
AXP closed at $308.17 on Friday; the close sits below the 20-session EMA at $309.9, the 50-session EMA at $319.53, and the 200-session EMA at $326.66.
Daily RSI14 is 42.59, below the neutral 50 threshold; daily MACD histogram is positive at 1.14, with the MACD line at -5.47 above its signal at -6.61.
Hourly RSI14 is 61.79; hourly MACD line at 1.17 is above its signal at 0.77; the close is below the 200-hour EMA at $314.04.
Next-session daily pivot is $306.41, first resistance $310.55, first support $304.02. Daily ATR14 is $5.69.
Yahoo Finance reported a $350 million penalty over anti-money laundering controls; CNBC reported BMO initiated coverage with an outperform rating.
On Friday, October 9, 2026, AXP opened at $303.82 and closed at $308.17, after trading between $302.26 and $308.79. The session’s gain was 0.02% versus the prior close. The daily candle opened at $303.82, traded between a low of $302.26 and a high of $308.79, and closed at $308.17, against a previous close of $308.10. That leaves the daily resistance structure more significant than the small positive session change.
American Express Stock Faces a Bearish Daily Structure
The Twelve Data chart places the close below all three daily exponential averages. The 20-session EMA at $309.9 is the nearest barrier, with the 50-session EMA at $319.53 and the 200-session EMA at $326.66 sitting above it. Price and the averages are aligned bearishly.
However, daily momentum is mixed rather than uniformly negative. Daily RSI14 stands at 42.59, below the neutral 50 threshold. The MACD line is negative at -5.47 but above its signal at -6.61, with a positive histogram of 1.14. That combination provides a bullish counterpoint within the bearish price structure.
Meanwhile, the close sits below the daily Bollinger mid-band at $308.62. It is positioned between the lower band at $295.15 and the upper band at $322.09. The mid-band is an immediate overhead reference. Daily ATR14 reads $5.69, providing the volatility context for judging breaks of nearby levels.
News Presents Competing Narratives for American Express Stock
Before Friday’s open, Yahoo Finance reported a $350 million penalty over deficiencies in American Express’s anti-money laundering controls. Its coverage also noted that shares declined nearly 2% in Thursday’s after-hours trading after the OCC imposed the penalty. That reported reaction is separate from Friday’s regular-session result.
In contrast, CNBC’s report published before Friday’s open said BMO initiated coverage with an outperform rating. CNBC attributed BMO’s rebound thesis to strong demand for premium credit cards. This is BMO’s assessment, not confirmation that the daily chart has turned bullish.
Separately, Yahoo Finance reported before Friday’s open that American Express rolled out its next-generation Amex Corporate platform. The report described Corporate Cashback Cards, expense software and an AI-supported mobile app for business spending.
Hourly Strength Complicates the Daily View
On the hourly chart, the session close sits above the 20-hour EMA at $305.72 and the 50-hour EMA at $304.94. However, it remains below the 200-hour EMA at $314.04. The shorter averages support the constructive hourly picture. Still, the longer average prevents a fully bullish alignment.
Hourly RSI14 is 61.79, above 50 but below the overbought threshold. The MACD line at 1.17 is above its signal at 0.77, with a positive histogram of 0.4.
At the same time, the close sits above the hourly Bollinger mid-band at $304.98 and below the upper band at $309.38. Hourly ATR14 reads $1.84. Thus, the hourly chart offers positive momentum evidence, while its upper band and 200-hour average remain overhead references.
Execution Context and Next-Session Levels
The 15-minute chart is useful for timing, not for defining the main bias. Its 20-period EMA at $307.38, 50-period EMA at $306.07 and 200-period EMA at $304.68 are bullishly aligned beneath the session close. Each period here represents a quarter-hour.
Nevertheless, the execution signals are mixed. The 15-minute RSI14 is 62.49, above 50. The MACD line at 0.7 sits below its signal at 0.76, and the histogram is negative at -0.06. The close lies above the Bollinger mid-band at $307.54 but below the upper band at $308.47. ATR14 reads $0.73.
When trading resumes, the daily pivot for the next session sits at $306.41. First resistance is at $310.55 and first support at $304.02. The hourly next-session pivot is $308.29, with first resistance at $308.67 and first support at $307.8. The 15-minute next-session pivot is $308.31, with first resistance at $308.65 and first support at $307.84.
Bullish and Bearish Conditions for AXP
A bullish case would require price to reclaim the daily Bollinger mid-band at $308.62. It would then need to clear the 20-session EMA at $309.9. Acceptance above daily first resistance at $310.55 would strengthen that case. The 50-session EMA at $319.53 would remain a further barrier. Those initial breaks alone would not establish full bullish alignment.
Conversely, a break below the next-session daily pivot at $306.41 would undermine the bullish case. A subsequent break below daily first support at $304.02 would reinforce the bearish bias. The session low at $302.26 and daily lower Bollinger band at $295.15 are lower reference levels.
Overall, American Express stock stands below the daily mid-band and all three daily averages, despite positive hourly momentum readings. Daily ATR14 of $5.69 supplies the broader volatility context. The unresolved question is whether price can clear the daily resistance sequence or break support when trading resumes.
FAQ
What is the daily trend structure for American Express stock?
The daily structure is bearish. The close at $308.17 sits below all three daily exponential averages — the 20-session EMA at $309.9, the 50-session EMA at $319.53, and the 200-session EMA at $326.66. Daily RSI14 is 42.59, below the neutral 50 threshold.
What do the hourly momentum indicators show?
Hourly RSI14 is 61.79, above the neutral 50 but below overbought levels. The hourly MACD line at 1.17 is above its signal at 0.77 with a positive histogram of 0.4. This offers supportive momentum within a bearish daily context, though the close remains below the 200-hour EMA at $314.04.
What are the key levels for the next session?
The daily pivot sits at $306.41, with first resistance at $310.55 and first support at $304.02. The daily Bollinger mid-band at $308.62 and the 20-session EMA at $309.9 are immediate overhead references. Daily ATR14 is $5.69.
What developments were reported about American Express before Friday’s session?
Yahoo Finance reported a $350 million penalty over anti-money laundering controls and, in separate coverage, noted a nearly 2% after-hours decline on Thursday. CNBC reported BMO initiated coverage with an outperform rating, citing strong demand for premium credit cards. Yahoo Finance also reported the rollout of a next-generation Amex Corporate platform.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Cryptonomist and the author hold no positions in the financial instruments mentioned and receive no compensation from the companies covered.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

ESMA’s regulation of stablecoins reaches beyond trading: an opinion published on October 8, 2026 calls for MiCA-authorised crypto firms to stop services involving non-compliant tokens for EU clients, while allowing tightly supervised activities to clear existing holdings.
The European Securities and Markets Authority said in a press release that its opinion clarifies supervisory expectations for asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs) that fail to meet the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, or MiCA.
The scope covers the full range of regulated crypto services, not just exchange listings. Existing customer exposure must be addressed as soon as possible, with an outer limit of three months after publication.
Stablecoin regulation extends to custody and transfers
MiCA-authorised crypto-asset service providers should cease services involving non-compliant stablecoins for clients in the European Union. The restriction encompasses trading platforms, exchange, order execution, placement, order reception and transmission, investment advice, transfers, custody and administration, and portfolio management. It applies to services offered separately or together.
National Competent Authorities are responsible for ensuring that market participants do not maintain, introduce or facilitate client access to these tokens. They should also ensure that providers adopt technical, contractual and organisational controls that prevent the tokens’ availability in the EU, including controls against customers acquiring tokens or increasing existing exposure.
A narrow allowance remains for handling affected assets. Continuing services must be necessary for liquidation, conversion, withdrawal, transfer or safekeeping. Those activities must be time-limited, risk-based and closely supervised—not a continuation of ordinary access.
According to crypto.news, the three-month window concerns remaining customer holdings and does not reopen ordinary trading in tokens previously removed under MiCA. The report also distinguishes these expectations for licensed providers from a universal prohibition on holding tokens in private wallets.
National supervisors should require remediation of remaining pre-existing exposure no later than three months after publication. Crypto.news identifies that outer deadline as January 8, 2027.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Kyrgyzstan is ending its national USDKG stablecoin project, while South Korea proposes tighter transfer controls and Thailand prepares to open its domestic crypto ETF market. These Asia crypto regulatory updates, reported on October 11, 2026, combine shutdowns and compliance requirements with institutional settlement tests and stablecoin partnerships.
Key takeaways
Kyrgyzstan ordered the liquidation of USDKG’s issuer and Coin Nomad Exchange.
Dubai requires reserves covering all VASP customer liabilities.
Thailand’s first crypto ETFs will hold only Bitcoin or Ethereum.
According to Wu Blockchain, Kyrgyzstan instructed its Ministry of Finance to liquidate EVA, USDKG’s issuer, and Coin Nomad Exchange, the country’s first state-owned cryptocurrency exchange. The other developments cover transfer registration, mining electricity access, tokenization and sanctions compliance.
Kyrgyzstan ends its national stablecoin project
Kyrgyzstan’s shutdown aims to optimize state-owned asset management, officials said. USDKG launched in November 2025, with approximately 50 million tokens intended mainly for cross-border settlements.
The United Kingdom sanctioned the issuer in May 2026 on suspicion of supporting Russia through economically significant business activities. Holders can redeem USDKG for fiat currency or USDT.
Cross-border oversight in Asia’s crypto regulatory updates
South Korea’s proposed amendments would require virtual asset transfer operators to register before operating. The Ministry of Economy and Finance opened consultation on October 7, 2026, on changes to the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act.
The scope includes custody, management and intermediary transfers between South Korea and overseas, plus relevant transfers between domestic VASPs and personal wallets. Operators would need computerized facilities and at least two professional staff. Records would pass through the Bank of Korea’s foreign exchange network and could reach tax, customs, financial supervision and financial intelligence agencies.
Russia restricts mining grid connections
Russia permits cryptocurrency mining facilities to seek grid connections only under Class 4 power-supply reliability, making them subject to priority disconnection during shortages or deteriorating operating conditions. The category dates to February 2026.
The rule also covers previously submitted but incomplete applications. The Ministry of Energy said it aims to prevent mining-related power shortages and improve use of existing grid infrastructure.
China plans national computing and blockchain networks
China’s CPC Central Committee and State Council issued policy opinions calling for integrated national computing power and blockchain networks. The document also includes manufacturing digitalization, “East Data, West Computing,” smart manufacturing and industrial internet projects.
It calls for improved data property rights, transactions and benefit distribution, alongside data-element pilots. Other priorities include “AI Plus,” embodied AI, quantum technology, brain-computer interfaces and patient capital for early-stage hard-tech investment.
Japan validates cross-chain settlement
Nine Japanese institutions completed Phase 2 of Project Trinity, testing synchronized delivery-versus-payment settlement across chains. Participants included Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, Daiwa Securities, SBI Securities, Progmat and Datachain.
Daiwa and SBI Securities simulated Osaka Digital Exchange’s START market. Two settlements paired SBI VC Trade’s ST corporate bonds with Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation’s trust-type stablecoins, validating a T+2 settlement cycle at this stage.
Dubai requires full reserve coverage
Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority requires VASPs to maintain 100% coverage of customer liabilities throughout the audit review period. Its October 6, 2026, circular requires matching assets at a 1:1 ratio and daily reconciliation.
Independent audits must cover hot, warm and cold wallets, third-party infrastructure and custodians. Reviews also examine asset segregation, wallet control and rehypothecation or lending.
Authorities advance stablecoin and tokenization cooperation
According to the official HKMA statement, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and Bank Negara Malaysia will establish a joint policy-focused workstream to promote compliant cross-border stablecoin use cases, while Asia’s weekly TOP10 crypto news describes a policy-level working group for the same purpose. They also plan closer tokenization exchanges, stronger real-time settlement links and exploration of connectivity between Hong Kong’s CMU and Malaysia’s RENTAS securities depository.
Tether separately signed a memorandum with Kazakhstan’s National Bank and Almaty City Administration to explore stablecoins, tokenization and DeFi. Work includes a Kazakh tenge-pegged stablecoin concept, possible use of Hadron and an Almaty pilot.
Thailand sets crypto ETF requirements
Thailand’s SEC issued 11 rules on October 8, 2026, effective October 16, 2026. Initially, ETFs can invest only in Bitcoin or Ethereum, trade domestically, follow passive strategies and maintain annual average exposure of at least 80% to one crypto asset.
Regulated custodians must hold assets. Mutual and private equity funds can invest, but securities firms cannot finance purchases. Retail access to overseas crypto ETFs through Thai brokers remains temporarily prohibited.
Binance report identifies Iranian-linked accounts
The Wall Street Journal reported that an April 2026 Binance investigation identified 21 accounts linked to US-sanctioned financier Babak Zanjani, with approximately $850 million in transactions. Binance said it blocked and liquidated associated sanctions-violating accounts, disputing any equation of total volume with Revolutionary Guard funding.
The report, requested by the UAE Financial Intelligence Unit, traced at least $67 million from two accounts to wallets identified as linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

A $141 million lawsuit between DWF Labs subsidiaries and BitGo centers on an alleged breach of token-sale restrictions: DWF Maas and Falcon Digital claim the cryptocurrency custodian sold discounted FF and ESPORTS tokens before their three-month lock-ups ended. The DWF Labs–BitGo lawsuit links those alleged early sales to falling token prices and claimed financial losses.
Key takeaways
DWF Maas and Falcon Digital brought the case in London’s High Court.
DWF alleges tokens reached exchanges roughly two months before the first unlock.
The subsidiaries seek $114 million for claimed direct losses.
According to CoinDesk, the two investment subsidiaries of market maker DWF Labs agreed to sell the tokens to BitGo at a discount, conditional on a three-month lock-up. DWF Maas is based in the British Virgin Islands, while Falcon Digital is based in Panama.
The contract terms behind the DWF Labs–BitGo lawsuit
The subsidiaries allege BitGo breached its contracts by selling Falcon Finance’s FF tokens and ESPORTS tokens before the agreed restrictions expired. Their claim rests on the discount being tied to keeping those assets locked.
DWF said the tokens moved to exchanges roughly two months before the first unlock, according to the Financial Times report cited in the coverage. DWF also said it raised the issue with BitGo in April and May and pursued court action after receiving no undertaking.
Token declines underpin the damages claim
DWF seeks $114 million in damages, alleging that BitGo’s sales caused direct losses by driving down both tokens’ prices. The reported $141 million lawsuit amount and the stated damages demand are separate figures in the coverage.
The report places FF at 8 cents in early March, when its lock-up began, and around 7 cents by late April. Between mid-March and early June, ESPORTS fell from roughly 28 cents to just 7 cents. The subsidiaries attribute these declines to the alleged premature sales.
Regulatory scrutiny surrounding DWF’s investment history
Among DWF’s past investments is a $25 million purchase of WLFI made in 2025, WLFI being the native token of World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency venture backed by President Donald Trump and his family.
According to the report, that investment raised alarm among certain Washington, D.C. lawmakers because of purported ties between DWF founder Andrei Grachev and Russia. From 2018 to 2019, Grachev headed Huobi’s Russian division, and the report notes that Huobi has been sanctioned in several jurisdictions for assisting Russia in circumventing Western sanctions.
Requests for comment on the lawsuit sent to both DWF and BitGo went unanswered right away.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

The CFTC’s regulation of prediction markets moved toward a sharper divide on October 9, 2026: event contracts would fall under federal derivatives oversight, while conventional casino and sportsbook wagers would remain outside it. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued an interim final rule and a separate proposal as states contest its authority over sports-related contracts.
Key takeaways
The CFTC proposes treating sports, political, cultural and weather contracts as swaps.
Casino games and sportsbook wagers are excluded from the swap definition.
Federal appeals courts disagree over sports-contract jurisdiction.
The NFL backs state oversight; Robinhood backs exclusive federal authority.
According to CoinCentral, the measures seek to establish the agency’s authority over event contracts amid lawsuits and competing Supreme Court petitions. States argue that sports-related contracts are sports bets subject to their gambling laws, not products governed exclusively by federal regulators.
The distinction is central to the dispute: the CFTC claims jurisdiction over sports event contracts while excluding wagers placed through casinos and sportsbooks. Its proposal would formalize that interpretation under the Commodity Exchange Act.
How the CFTC’s regulation of prediction markets would work
The proposed rule would explicitly include event contracts linked to sports, politics, culture and weather in the definition of a swap. The separate interim final rule excludes casino-style gambling products from that definition.
According to Crypto.news, the proposal for inclusion is grounded in statutory wording that addresses payments contingent on events carrying possible financial, economic or commercial ramifications. The agency argues that a potential consequence is sufficient; an actual financial effect need not already have occurred.
For weather contracts, the proposal cites temperature changes affecting agriculture, energy consumption and outdoor activity. Those possible effects can meet the statutory requirement even when a particular temperature reading causes no immediate financial loss.
CFTC Chair Mike Selig described event contracts as allowing users to “hedge risks, speculate, and provide the public with information about the outcome of future events.” On the separate exclusion, he said: “Casino-style gambling products are not derivatives.”
The exclusion takes effect upon publication in the Federal Register. Each measure has a separate 30-day written comment period following publication; the inclusion rule remains a proposal.
States challenge federal authority as appeals courts split
Federal appeals courts have reached opposing conclusions about sports event contracts. The Ninth and Sixth Circuits treated them as sports bets and ruled against prediction markets, while the Third Circuit held that they are swaps under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction.
States and former federal officials have submitted arguments asking the Supreme Court to resolve the jurisdictional dispute. Ars Technica reports that litigation in about 20 states concerns whether federal authority preempts state restrictions on prediction-market betting.
New York’s case against Polymarket illustrates the state enforcement position. In a petition dated September 24, 2026, Attorney General Letitia James alleged that the platform offered sports contracts without a state gambling license and allowed people under 21 to use it, according to crypto.news.
The state sought fines, customer restitution and forfeiture of gains it alleges were earned illegally. Those claims are allegations, not findings.
The NFL and Robinhood take opposing positions
The NFL supports state regulation of sports-related contracts, while Robinhood supports the CFTC’s exclusive authority. Both have brought their positions to the Supreme Court.
The NFL filed a brief backing New Jersey’s petition concerning Kalshi’s sports contracts. The league argues that state oversight is necessary to protect customers and game integrity. Robinhood filed its own petition supporting exclusive federal jurisdiction; Kalshi also backs the agency’s oversight claim.
TD Cowen policy analyst Jaret Seiberg said the casino exclusion could strengthen the agency’s legal position by countering arguments that its swap definition would make state-regulated betting illegal.
The CFTC’s regulation of prediction markets is advancing with Selig serving as the sole commissioner on a five-seat commission. Both rulemaking actions had already been sent to the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on September 28, 2026, before being released on October 9.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Former Celsius CEO Alex Mashinsky faces a permanent ban from New York’s financial industries and up to $35 million in conditional payments under a legal settlement secured by Attorney General Letitia James on October 9, 2026. The agreement adds state penalties to his federal fraud conviction and 12-year prison sentence.
Key takeaways
Mashinsky is permanently excluded from New York’s securities, commodities and cryptocurrency industries.
The settlement’s payments depend on federal forfeiture and completion of his prison sentence.
Celsius bankruptcy distributions exceeded $3.4 billion as of August.
According to CoinDesk, the agreement settles the state’s civil case against Mashinsky, whom James sued in 2023. She accused him of giving hundreds of thousands of investors false assurances about the safety of deposits held at Celsius, including those of more than 26,000 New Yorkers.
The former Celsius CEO’s legal settlement sets conditional payments
The settlement requires Mashinsky to pay New York $25 million if he does not surrender $10 million in ill-gotten gains to the federal government, according to the attorney general’s office. A separate $10 million payment applies if he fails to complete his prison sentence.
Alongside those financial conditions, the agreement permanently prohibits him from working in New York’s securities, commodities and cryptocurrency industries. The permanent industry ban is part of the state settlement, separate from his federal criminal punishment.
Fraud allegations and federal punishment
After entering a guilty plea on charges tied to securities and commodities fraud, Mashinsky is now serving a 12-year federal prison sentence. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also permanently barred him from commodities activity in June.
The state’s allegations centered on how he represented the lender’s safety. James said he misled investors, including more than 26,000 New Yorkers, about the security of their Celsius deposits.
Celsius bankruptcy recovery exceeds $3.4 billion
Customers and creditors had received more than $3.4 billion through Celsius bankruptcy proceedings as of August, James said. The lender stopped customer withdrawals in June 2022, then sought bankruptcy protection in July 2022.
When Celsius emerged from bankruptcy in 2024, it had planned approximately $3 billion in distributions comprising cryptocurrency and cash. That plan used Coinbase and PayPal to handle payments.
James challenges Celsius’ safety claims
James said Mashinsky presented Celsius as safer than a bank even as the lender pursued risky strategies with customer assets and hid losses. Those representations were part of her account of how investors were misled.
“I will not allow scammers to use cryptocurrencies to prey on unsuspecting New Yorkers,” James said.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Tether temporarily froze approximately 1.45 million USDT in four THORChain vault addresses on TRON on October 9, 2026, interrupting swaps and related functions. The blacklist lasted about three hours before all four addresses were released, with their balances intact.
Wu Blockchain, citing The Defiant, reported that THORChain suspended TRON-related swaps and certain functions during the freeze, then restored the affected services after the reversal. THORChain co-founder Chad Barraford said the team had received no advance notice from Tether.
How Tether’s USDT freeze on TRON halted swaps
The blacklisting prevented the affected vaults from transferring USDT, disrupting the pooled assets used to support cross-chain trades. Crypto Briefing reported that TRON-based swaps and liquidity-provider operations went offline almost immediately after the action.
THORChain allows users to exchange native assets across different blockchains without wrapping them or handing them to a centralized exchange. Its vaults hold the pooled assets needed for those transactions.
Tether’s USDT freeze on TRON operated through the token contract’s addBlackList function, Crypto Briefing explained. That control prevents a listed address from sending USDT. In this incident, the tokens remained in the vaults while their movement was blocked.
The reversal covered all four THORChain addresses after about three hours. It did not clear the entire batch: another 19 addresses blacklisted alongside the vaults remained on the blacklist at the time of the report.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Reports of Ledger hardware wallet theft have prompted an investigation into devices sold by CryptoBilis in Southeast Asia, with the manufacturer asking the reseller to suspend sales and shipments. Separately, onchain investigator Specter estimated losses of more than $86 million across hundreds of wallets.
According to Wu Blockchain, Ledger advised customers who purchased devices from CryptoBilis within the past 90 days not to initialize them. Customers who have already completed setup should consider transferring their assets to a new Ledger signer with a newly generated seed phrase.
The investigation and Specter’s estimate were reported on October 9, 2026. CoinDesk reported that the loss figure had not been independently confirmed. There is currently no evidence of a direct compromise of Ledger’s hardware wallets or core infrastructure.
Ledger hardware wallet theft reports point to suspected supply-chain attack
CZ described a single-vendor supply-chain attack as the apparent explanation, based on information available so far. He said a small number of users likely bought fake or tampered Ledger devices. That assessment is not a confirmed finding about how the funds were taken.
Specter’s investigation followed user reports on X and Reddit. The investigator traced suspicious addresses that received funds from hundreds of victim wallets on Ethereum, TRON and Bitcoin, putting estimated aggregate losses above $86 million.
Unchained, in a report carried by Yahoo, said Specter listed 10 addresses. Those addresses held more than $25 million at the last check, suggesting that most of the funds had already moved.
The Security Alliance asked people whose funds were drained to the listed addresses to contact it through the SEAL 911 Telegram bot. CZ added that the wider industry, along with those involved in the BNB ecosystem, would assist in tracking down and recovering the stolen funds.
Ledger said it would keep customers informed as its investigation progresses. Its request to CryptoBilis covers both sales and shipments of Ledger devices.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

EU crypto platforms have until January 8, 2027, to resolve customer holdings of unauthorized stablecoins under guidance issued on October 8 by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). The enforcement timetable for EU stablecoin regulation gives firms up to three months to wind down exposure, while they stop services that let customers acquire more affected tokens.
Key takeaways
ESMA sets a three-month limit for resolving unauthorized stablecoin holdings.
USDT and PayPal USD lack MiCA authorization.
Limited exit and safekeeping services remain permitted during the wind-down.
According to CoinDesk, national authorities must oversee the process and require remaining balances to be resolved as quickly as possible. The deadline applies to holdings of stablecoins that fail to meet the bloc’s Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) requirements.
EU stablecoin regulation gets a three-month enforcement deadline
ESMA’s opinion gives national regulators a three-month outer limit for resolving customers’ remaining holdings. It directs authorized crypto-asset service providers to stop offering services involving noncompliant stablecoins, apart from limited activities needed to wind down existing positions.
MiCA’s stablecoin provisions began applying in June 2024. Issuers of dollar- and euro-pegged tokens offered to EU users must meet authorization, reserve, redemption and disclosure requirements. ESMA describes the covered assets as asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens.
According to the regulator, letting noncompliant tokens remain accessible on authorized platforms would undermine the reserve, redemption, governance and disclosure requirements set for authorized issuers.
USDT and PayPal USD lack MiCA authorization
Tether’s USDT and PayPal USD (PYUSD) are major examples of stablecoins without MiCA authorization. USDT is the largest stablecoin by market capitalization; PYUSD ranks third.
Crypto Briefing reported that Tether has indicated it does not intend to seek an EU e-money token license. The same report noted that several major platforms had already limited or removed USDT access for users in the European Economic Area.
Buying stops, but limited exit services remain available
Platforms must stop services that allow EU customers to buy, trade, swap or increase holdings of affected stablecoins. The guidance reaches beyond exchange trading to order execution, transfers, custody, administration, advice and portfolio management.
During the wind-down, firms can provide services needed to sell, convert, withdraw, transfer or safeguard existing tokens. Those permissions do not extend to purchases, promotion, trading or continued market availability.
Crypto Briefing also reported that providers are expected to implement technical, contractual and organizational safeguards to prevent clients from acquiring noncompliant tokens or increasing their positions.
National authorities oversee remaining customer balances
National regulators will supervise compliance and determine how individual platforms resolve remaining client holdings within the three-month limit. EU stablecoin regulation therefore places the handling of those balances under national oversight.
EU users holding USDT on an exchange must follow that platform’s instructions. During the wind-down, some users will be able to sell or withdraw their tokens, while others face an earlier platform cutoff; the outer deadline is January 8, 2027.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Humana stock presents a neutral daily chart, with Thursday’s close at $387.12 below the 20-session EMA but above the 50-session EMA. The hourly chart adds bearish pressure.
On Thursday, October 8, 2026, Humana opened at $396.03, traded between a low of $375.86 and a high of $399.19, and closed at $387.12, against a previous close of $396.51. Volume was 2,658,300 shares. Prices and technical indicators are from Twelve Data.
HUM — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
Humana closed Thursday at $387.12, below the 20-session EMA ($390.48) but above the 50-session EMA ($385.1).
Daily RSI14 is 48.33, below the neutral 50; the daily MACD histogram is positive at 0.79, with the MACD line (1.2) above its signal (0.41).
The hourly chart is bearish: price sits below all three hourly EMAs, hourly RSI14 is 44.05, and the hourly MACD line (-2.25) is below its signal (-0.3).
Daily ATR14 increased to $14.69 from $14.02 in the preceding session.
A Yahoo Finance report published after Thursday’s close said Humana’s largest Medicare Advantage contract rose from 3.5 to 4 stars; Investing.com reported on Friday that 95% of Medicare members are in 4-star-plus plans.
Humana stock: a neutral daily bias with conflicting momentum
The close sits below the 20-session EMA at $390.48 but above the 50-session EMA at $385.1. The 200-session EMA stands at $326.85. That positioning leaves near-term resistance overhead while preserving support at the intermediate average; it is not a fully bullish alignment.
However, daily momentum is mixed rather than uniformly bearish. RSI14 stands at 48.33, below the neutral 50 threshold. The MACD line is 1.2, above its signal at 0.41, with a positive histogram of 0.79. MACD therefore retains a positive signal despite the RSI’s weaker position.
The daily Bollinger mid-band at $389.53 also sits above the close, between the lower band at $368.18 and upper band at $410.88. This adds a volatility caution to a setup without clear directional agreement.
Hourly weakness limits the bullish reading for Humana
In contrast, the hourly chart is less supportive. The session close sits below all three hourly EMAs: the 200-hour at $389.89, the 50-hour at $392.11, and the 20-hour at $392.43. Price is below all three, even though the 20-hour EMA sits above the 50-hour and the 200-hour.
Hourly RSI14 is 44.05, below 50. The MACD line at -2.25 is below its signal at -0.3, while the histogram is -1.96. This negative hourly signal weakens the daily MACD’s positive reading and keeps the main thesis neutral rather than bullish.
Meanwhile, the 15-minute chart offers only execution context. The close sits above its 20-period EMA at $386.69 but below the 50-period EMA at $390.92 and 200-period EMA at $392.34. RSI14 is 49.2, below 50. Its MACD line at -1.68 is above the signal at -2.53, with a positive histogram of 0.86. That short-term signal does not override the hourly weakness.
Medicare ratings reports belong to the later news backdrop
A Yahoo Finance report published after Thursday’s close said Humana’s largest Medicare Advantage contract covered more than 2 million members. It reported an increase from 3.5 stars to 4, putting the contract above the bonus threshold.
On Friday, October 9, Investing.com reported that Humana had 95% of Medicare members in 4-star-plus plans. Another Friday report from Investing.com linked stock gains to a Medicare Star Ratings boost from Evercore. A Reuters report carried by Investing.com described Humana as the top beneficiary of the 2027 Medicare star ratings.
Investing.com also reported a 15% premarket gain on Friday and a Medicare upgrade. That is the outlet’s later premarket figure, not Thursday’s session return or an updated chart price. All these reports were published after Thursday’s session.
Bullish and bearish conditions for Humana stock
When trading resumes, the daily pivot sits at $387.39, with first resistance at $398.92 and first support at $375.59. These levels are calculated from the completed daily candle and apply to the next session.
A bullish case would require holding the 50-session EMA at $385.1 and clearing the daily pivot at $387.39. Above that, the Bollinger mid-band at $389.53 and 20-session EMA at $390.48 are successive hurdles. Acceptance above those levels, alongside an hourly MACD line above its signal, would support a stronger bullish reading. Daily first resistance at $398.92 would then be the next reference.
Conversely, a break below the 50-session EMA at $385.1 would undermine that case. The session low at $375.86 comes before daily first support at $375.59, followed by the lower Bollinger band at $368.18. For short-term timing when trading resumes, the 15-minute pivot is $386.63, with first resistance at $388.89 and first support at $385.07.
Overall, the $387.12 session close lies between daily support at the $385.1 EMA and resistance at the $390.48 EMA. ATR14 at $14.69 keeps volatility central to the assessment. The unresolved question is whether the later Medicare news will be matched by price acceptance above the chart’s overhead levels.
FAQ
What is the daily trend structure for Humana stock?
Humana’s daily chart is neutral. Thursday’s close at $387.12 sits below the 20-session EMA at $390.48 but above the 50-session EMA at $385.1. Daily RSI14 at 48.33 is below the neutral 50, though the MACD retains a positive signal with the line at 1.2 above its signal at 0.41 and a positive histogram of 0.79.
What do the Medicare star ratings reports say?
A Yahoo Finance report published after Thursday’s close said Humana’s largest Medicare Advantage contract, covering more than 2 million members, increased from 3.5 to 4 stars, placing it above the bonus threshold. Investing.com reported on Friday, October 9, that 95% of Humana’s Medicare members are in 4-star-plus plans. These reports were published after the session.
What are the key levels to watch for Humana stock?
The daily pivot for the next session is $387.39, with first resistance at $398.92 and first support at $375.59. The 50-session EMA at $385.1 and the 20-session EMA at $390.48 are key reference points. The Bollinger mid-band sits at $389.53, with the lower band at $368.18 and upper band at $410.88. Daily ATR14 is $14.69.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Cryptonomist and the author hold no positions in the financial instruments mentioned and receive no compensation from the companies covered.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

The NFL is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let states police sports wagers on platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, challenging the federal government’s claim to exclusive authority. In a brief filed on October 8, 2026, the league argued that regulation of prediction markets needs stronger protections against manipulation and betting by people younger than 21.
Key takeaways
The NFL backs state oversight of sports prediction markets.
Federal courts have split over the CFTC’s exclusive authority.
Kalshi and the CFTC dispute the NFL’s account of their engagement.
According to CoinDesk, the NFL joined state governments, tribes, former regulator Gary Gensler and former Senator Chris Dodd in opposing exclusive federal oversight. New Jersey has asked the Supreme Court to hear its dispute with Kalshi and resolve who can regulate these markets.
The NFL argues that sports prediction contracts amount to gambling, rather than financial swaps governed solely by federal authorities. The league told CNBC it is not opposed to prediction markets but considers the states better equipped to oversee them, given the federal regulator’s resource constraints.
NFL challenges federal prediction market regulation
The NFL’s brief argues that federal oversight provides fewer safeguards than state gambling regulation. It says the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, has not imposed standards as demanding as those enforced by state gaming authorities.
The league wants restrictions on contracts involving outcomes a single athlete can influence, such as a field goal attempt. It also objects to trades involving officiating, player injuries and information knowable before a game, including its first play. The NFL wants platforms to cooperate on prohibited bettor lists.
Age limits are another dividing line. Most states require sportsbook customers to be at least 21, while Kalshi accepts customers as young as 18, CNBC reported. The NFL says neither the CFTC nor prediction market companies have adopted its requested age floor or banned categories of bets vulnerable to manipulation.
The NFL told CNBC that football generated $1.8 billion in prediction market trading on the season’s first Sunday, more than half of total volume. Separately, The Athletic cited Ticker Tracker data showing NFL trading represented 65.8% of Kalshi’s sports volume on the Sunday preceding the filing.
Conflicting court rulings divide federal and state authority
One federal court has supported Kalshi’s position that the CFTC is its sole regulator, while two others have backed state authority. The CFTC maintains that its jurisdiction over exchanges including Kalshi and Polymarket overrides state powers.
The Athletic reported that 20 states have challenged prediction markets in court. 39 states filed an amicus brief supporting New Jersey’s case on Wednesday. Tribal nations and organizations submitted their own brief on Thursday, seeking application of tribal gaming laws.
Dodd, a sponsor of the Dodd-Frank Act on which the CFTC bases its position, disputed that reading of the law. He wrote that it “did not set out to authorize nationwide sports betting through derivatives markets or displace decades of state and tribal primacy over gaming regulation.”
Kalshi and the CFTC contest the NFL’s account
Kalshi and the CFTC say they have sought engagement with the NFL on market integrity, challenging the league’s account of unanswered requests. Kalshi spokesperson Elisabeth Diana said: “We have consistently tried to engage proactively and constructively with the NFL to collaborate on market integrity with no response.”
Kalshi also told CNBC that the CFTC can police sports-related event contracts and that its ongoing rulemaking addresses many of the league’s concerns.
CFTC public affairs director Brooke Nethercott told The Athletic that the agency had engaged with the NFL “since day one.” She said the league declined a memorandum of understanding that would have enabled greater cooperation and information sharing.
The NFL urged prompt Supreme Court action, warning in its brief: “Billions of dollars will be bet on NFL games through prediction markets each season, and any delay from the court will result in increasing consumer harm and risk to game integrity.”
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

LSEG’s agreement with CMC Markets expands the trading and investing business’s access to financial data, news and analytics under a multi-year strategic deal. The partnership supports CMC’s multi-asset offering and its plans to develop products, enter markets and grow institutional and B2B relationships.
According to Finextra, the agreement broadens access to pricing and other financial information while giving CMC access to AI-ready content for future applications and workflows.
LSEG and CMC Markets agreement broadens data access
The agreement strengthens the data infrastructure supporting CMC’s multi-asset offering. Its expanded coverage includes real-time and delayed pricing, reference data, corporate actions data, news and analytical content.
The partnership is intended to provide more consistent, standardised financial information as CMC scales its business. That support extends to the development of new products, expansion into new markets and growth in institutional and B2B partnerships.
Data partnership supports technology-led growth
The agreement between LSEG and CMC Markets forms part of CMC’s strategy to build a more diversified, technology-led financial services business. Scalable infrastructure connects its trading, investing and institutional capabilities.
Access to LSEG’s AI-ready content adds a foundation for developing future AI-enabled applications and workflows across the business. The agreement also combines financial data and analytics with flexible access and specialist expertise to support CMC’s expansion.
Executives link broader access to scaling the business
Both businesses’ executives framed the partnership around CMC’s growth and diversification. Chris Coleman, LSEG’s Group Head of Sales and Account Management, said the combination of data, analytics and specialist support would help CMC scale, develop new client propositions and pursue innovation.
Lord Peter Cruddas, CMC Markets’ Founder and Chief Executive Officer, described the data provider as an important strategic partner. He said the agreement with LSEG would give CMC Markets greater capability for its next phase of growth.
“As CMC continues to grow and diversify, having the right data and technology behind the business is critical to how quickly and effectively we can scale,” Cruddas said. He also said broader access to trusted financial data would help the business move faster and strengthen the experience it delivers to clients.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

The U.S. government’s movement of 12,267 BTC, valued at approximately $1.01 billion, sent bitcoin seized from the 2016 Bitfinex hack to new, unlabeled wallets. The transfers, reported on October 8, 2026, showed no evidence of a sale and appeared more consistent with a reshuffling of wallets.
According to CoinDesk, which cited Arkham data, the bitcoin left a wallet containing funds seized in connection with the hack. One transaction went to a new address, and a second went to a different address. No deposit to an exchange was recorded for those transfers.
The activity followed transfers to Coinbase Prime addresses roughly 24 hours earlier. Those deposits totaled about 3,200 BTC, worth approximately $264 million, alongside $119 million in USDT. Arkham traced the transferred funds to wallets associated with the Bitfinex and FTX/Alameda seizures.
Coinbase Prime provides custody services as well as access to trading. Deposits into its wallets therefore do not, on their own, establish that the assets were sold. That distinction applies to the earlier deposits, separately from the bitcoin sent to unlabeled addresses.
U.S. government bitcoin movements and reserve policy
A March 2025 executive order directs forfeited bitcoin into a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve rather than allowing it to be sold. The reported wallet movements showed no evidence of a sale; moving the assets between addresses is not itself evidence of disposal.
Arkham’s data put the U.S. government’s cryptocurrency holdings at approximately $25.5 billion.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.