Aggregate open interest in altcoin perpetual futures surpassed Bitcoin’s for the first time since December 2024 on Sept. 6, reflecting increased leveraged trading as Zcash and the wider altcoin market rallied.

Bitcoin’s aggregate open interest stood near $25 billion on Sept. 7, according to Coinalyze. Perpetual contracts accounted for approximately $23.9 billion, while dated futures represented about $1.2 billion.

Bitcoin held around 37% of the perpetual open-interest market tracked by the platform. The combined share of altcoin contracts therefore exceeded Bitcoin’s share, although the altcoin category combines positions across many different assets.

Altcoin open interest now exceeds Bitcoin’s share

Open interest measures the value of outstanding derivatives contracts that traders have not closed or settled. It rises when participants establish new positions and declines when positions are closed, expire or face liquidation.

The metric does not show whether traders are collectively bullish or bearish. Each derivatives contract has both a long and short side, making rising open interest primarily a measure of participation and leverage.

Funding rates provide additional context. Positive funding generally indicates that long positions are paying shorts, while negative funding suggests stronger demand for bearish exposure. Price movements and liquidation data can then help identify which side is under pressure.

The altcoin crossover therefore does not prove that traders expect every token to appreciate. It shows that the combined value of outstanding altcoin perpetual positions has moved above Bitcoin’s total.

Market structure also matters. Bitcoin remains the largest individual crypto derivatives market. The competing altcoin figure combines Ether, Solana, XRP, BNB, Zcash and hundreds of smaller tokens.

Bitcoin’s share could recover quickly if traders add new BTC positions or if altcoin leverage is removed through liquidations. The crossover is best treated as a snapshot of current positioning rather than a permanent change in market leadership.

Zcash drove part of the derivatives expansion

Zcash became one of the clearest examples of rising altcoin leverage. ZEC futures open interest climbed to approximately $2.3 billion to $2.4 billion as the privacy token moved above $1,000 in early September. ZEC rose about 20% on Sept. 4 and reached an intraday high near $1,023. The advance liquidated approximately $36.6 million in leveraged positions, including about $34.5 million held by short sellers.

The token continued climbing after the initial breakout. ZEC traded near $1,192 on Sept. 7, up approximately 11% during the latest session, with prices ranging between roughly $1,074 and $1,249. Crypto.news reported that the rally coincided with Zcash becoming the first privacy coin with a U.S. spot ETF. Grayscale converted its Zcash Trust into the ZCSH exchange-traded fund on NYSE Arca in August.

The fund launched with approximately $304 million under management, according to the report. Its assets later passed $414 million as ZEC prices and investor interest increased. Short liquidations also accelerated the rally. Exchanges close bearish positions by purchasing the relevant asset or contract when traders no longer hold enough collateral. This forced buying can push prices higher during an already strong move.

The same mechanism can operate in reverse. If ZEC falls, leveraged long positions may be closed through forced sales, adding pressure when market liquidity is limited.

Earlier data had already shown derivatives activity outpacing spot demand. Crypto.news reported that ZEC futures volume reached $3.55 billion against $312 million in spot volume during a snapshot before the $1,000 breakout.

Higher dollar prices can inflate open interest

An increase in dollar-denominated open interest does not always mean traders added the same amount in new positions. The value can rise because the underlying token appreciates, even when the number of contracts remains unchanged.

ZEC provides a clear example. If 2.3 million ZEC remain committed to futures positions, their dollar value rises automatically when the token moves from $800 to $1,000. New positions and price appreciation can also occur together. Distinguishing between them requires reviewing open interest in both token and dollar terms.

The relationship between price and open interest provides useful context. Rising prices accompanied by rising open interest can indicate that traders are adding exposure. Rising prices with falling open interest may indicate that short sellers are closing positions.

Falling prices and declining open interest commonly point to long liquidations or voluntary position closures. Falling prices with rising open interest may indicate new short exposure, although funding data is needed to support that interpretation.

Crypto.news previously explained that open interest and funding rates represent stored liquidation pressure. A liquidation spike accompanied by a sharp decline in open interest indicates that leverage has left the market. A small decline suggests that traders may still be heavily positioned.

Spot altcoin valuations also increased

The market capitalization of altcoins outside the ten largest crypto assets rose above $200 billion during early September, according to figures cited alongside the Coinalyze crossover.

The category gained more than 10% from the beginning of the month. That increase suggests that rising derivatives activity occurred alongside higher spot valuations rather than entirely within futures markets.

Market capitalization does not directly measure the amount of new money entering an asset. It multiplies the latest traded price by circulating supply, so relatively small purchases can increase the calculated value of all circulating tokens. Bitcoin, meanwhile, traded near $79,575 on Sept. 7, down approximately 0.4% during the latest session. Its intraday range extended from roughly $79,460 to $80,494.

The combination of stable Bitcoin prices and stronger altcoin gains is consistent with traders accepting more risk. It does not establish that investors sold Bitcoin specifically to finance altcoin purchases.

The broader altcoin market had struggled earlier in 2026. Crypto.news reported that assets excluding Bitcoin and Ether lost nearly 23% during the first half, as liquidity concentrated in larger cryptocurrencies and stablecoins.

The September recovery therefore follows a prolonged period of weaker performance rather than beginning from an established altcoin bull market.

Liquidation risk depends on market depth

Elevated open interest becomes dangerous when leveraged positions grow faster than available liquidity. A sudden price move can then force exchanges to close positions more quickly than order books can absorb them. Long liquidations add forced selling during a decline. Short liquidations create forced buying during a rally. Both can amplify the original movement and produce a cascade across multiple exchanges.

The risk depends on margin levels, collateral quality, position concentration and spot-market depth. Open interest alone cannot identify when a liquidation event will begin. The original report claimed that liquidation events tend to accelerate when aggregate open interest reaches approximately 4.42% of total market capitalization. However, it did not link to a primary study or publish the methodology used to establish that threshold.

The 4.42% figure should therefore be treated as an unverified estimate rather than a dependable market trigger. Assets with similar ratios can behave differently because their liquidity, exchange distribution and collateral requirements vary.

Recent market events show how quickly leverage can unwind. Bitcoin dropped from above $81,000 to below $78,000 in August, while long positions accounted for around $270 million of liquidations. Crypto.news reported that Bitcoin open interest fell as leveraged longs exited.

The altcoin market may be more sensitive because many tokens have thinner order books than Bitcoin. A position that appears manageable under ordinary trading conditions can become difficult to close during a rapid move.

The 2024 crossover does not guarantee another correction

The previous crossover occurred in December 2024 and was followed by corrections across several mid-cap tokens. Bitcoin remained comparatively stable during part of that period. One historical occurrence does not establish a reliable predictive relationship. Market liquidity, exchange composition, leverage limits and collateral structures have changed since 2024.

Other developments may also have contributed to the earlier corrections, including macroeconomic conditions, token-specific news and broader shifts in risk appetite. Timing alone cannot prove that altcoin open interest caused the declines.

The most useful signals now include funding rates, spot trading volume and changes in open interest. Rising leverage combined with expensive funding and weakening spot demand would indicate a less stable market.

A decline in open interest while prices remain firm would suggest that excess leverage is leaving without causing a wider sell-off. Continued growth in both spot volume and open interest could indicate that derivatives activity still has underlying demand.

A large Chainlink holder transferred another 620,420 LINK to Coinbase on Sept. 7, extending a series of deposits to the U.S. exchange over the past three weeks. 

The latest transfer was worth approximately $7.6 million when blockchain analytics account Onchain Lens reported the movement.

The same address has now sent 2.41 million LINK, valued at about $26.04 million, to Coinbase during the period, according to the analyst’s post. Onchain Lens identified the originating wallet as 0xF5B007a6341AcC8CfEC581d8A1c5560bC19d9650.

The wallet had previously accumulated the tokens through withdrawals from Binance. Its later movement toward Coinbase represents a change from accumulation to exchange deposits, although the transfers do not confirm completed sales.

Chainlink whale moved 2.41 million LINK in three weeks

The latest 620,420 LINK deposit represented approximately 25.7% of the address’s total three-week transfers. The preceding deposits amounted to roughly 1.79 million LINK based on the cumulative figure supplied by Onchain Lens.

At the reported valuations, the newest transfer valued each LINK at about $12.25. The complete three-week figure valued the transferred tokens at an average of approximately $10.80 each. These values reflect prices around the time of each movement rather than a confirmed execution price.

Advertisement

The address’s earlier Binance withdrawals suggest that the wallet accumulated LINK before sending part or all of those holdings to Coinbase. However, blockchain records alone cannot identify the beneficial owner or explain the reason for each movement.

The address may belong to an individual, institution, trading firm or custody arrangement. Describing it as a whale refers to the size of the holdings and transfers, not a verified identity.

The wallet’s transaction history can be reviewed through the Ethereum block explorer Etherscan. Exchange destination labels also depend on address attribution and can change when analytics providers obtain new information.

Coinbase deposits raise selling risk but prove no sale

Transfers to centralized exchanges often receive attention because customers commonly deposit tokens before selling, converting or using them as collateral. A large deposit can therefore increase the amount of immediately tradable supply on an exchange.

Advertisement

Yet a Coinbase transfer does not establish that the holder sold the tokens. The wallet owner could move LINK for custody, collateral, internal account management, over-the-counter settlement or a future trade that has not occurred.

Confirmation of selling would require additional evidence. This could include movements from Coinbase hot wallets, order-book activity, changes in exchange balances or a statement from the wallet owner. None of those details accompanied the Onchain Lens report.

The transaction also should not be treated as a transfer by Chainlink itself. The address has not been identified as belonging to Chainlink Labs, the Chainlink Foundation or a known project treasury.

Large exchange transfers can still affect trader expectations before any tokens are sold. Market participants may reduce exposure when they interpret a deposit as potential supply. That reaction can create volatility even when the wallet’s actual purpose remains unknown.

Advertisement

Crypto.news previously documented the reverse pattern, with large holders withdrawing hundreds of millions of dollars in LINK while exchange balances declined. The latest Coinbase deposits show that individual whale behavior can differ from the broader holder trend.

LINK price retains bullish momentum near $13

LINK traded near $13.07 on Sept. 7, up approximately 7.1% during the latest session. Its intraday range extended from about $12.12 to $13.32.

The gain means the token was trading above the approximate valuation applied to the whale’s latest transfer. Its market price had also recovered strongly from the June and July lows near $7 to $8.

On the daily chart supplied with the market data, LINK’s moving average convergence divergence remained positive. The MACD line stood near 0.7841, above the signal line at approximately 0.7069, while the histogram remained positive at about 0.0771.

Advertisement

Those readings indicate that upward momentum remained present. The latest red candle and narrowing distance between momentum readings, however, suggest that the rally could be entering a slower phase.

The relative strength index was approximately 72.47, above its moving average near 67.71. An RSI reading above 70 is commonly treated as overbought, although it does not independently establish that a decline will follow.

LINK would need to maintain the $12 to $13 region to preserve its recent short-term recovery structure. A sustained move below that area would weaken the rebound, while a break above recent highs would extend it.

No evidence establishes that the whale deposit caused a specific LINK price movement. The token traded within a broader crypto market and reacted to several factors beyond a single wallet transfer.

Chainlink adoption provides a separate demand narrative

The whale movement occurred as Chainlink continued expanding its oracle and cross-chain infrastructure. These developments provide a fundamental backdrop but do not determine what the unidentified holder plans to do.

Advertisement

Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol connects applications and assets across multiple blockchain networks. The system processed $4.9 billion in volume during the second quarter, up 353% from the corresponding period one year earlier, according to figures cited by Standard Chartered.

The bank also estimated that Chainlink secured more than $110 billion in value across oracle feeds and cross-chain services. Its long-term LINK forecasts remain estimates rather than confirmed future prices.

Several large projects expanded their use of Chainlink during 2026. Aave adopted CCIP as the default infrastructure for cross-chain deposits, withdrawals, governance and GHO transfers, extending Chainlink’s role across the Aave ecosystem.

BitGo selected CCIP as the exclusive cross-chain provider for Wrapped Bitcoin. The decision moved its $7.3 billion WBTC ecosystem away from LayerZero and brought publicly announced CCIP migrations to roughly $14.6 billion.

Advertisement

Chainlink has also worked with traditional financial institutions. More than 50 banks joined a stablecoin foreign-exchange settlement test designed to combine blockchain settlement with existing Swift and ISO 20022 messaging systems. The project seeks to support atomic payment-versus-payment transactions, as detailed in Chainlink’s institutional settlement trial.

Bottomline Technologies recently partnered with Chainlink to connect blockchain-based payment tools with infrastructure serving hundreds of financial institutions. The agreement expanded Chainlink access across 600 banks.

These integrations can support demand for Chainlink services, but their effect on LINK varies by product design, fee structure and token usage. They do not remove the short-term supply risk associated with large exchange deposits.

Further wallet activity will clarify the holder’s strategy

The next transactions from the whale address will help determine whether the Coinbase deposits are continuing. Additional transfers would raise the cumulative amount available within the exchange’s custody environment.

Advertisement

Withdrawals back to a private address would point in the opposite direction. They could indicate that the holder retained the tokens or completed an internal transfer rather than selling them.

Changes in Coinbase’s LINK balances and transaction clusters may provide further context. Even then, analysts would need to separate this wallet’s activity from unrelated customer deposits and exchange operations.

For now, the blockchain confirms that 620,420 LINK moved from the identified address toward Coinbase. The conclusion that the whale sold $7.6 million of LINK would go beyond the available evidence.

Advertisement

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin rejected a Sept. 7 prediction that artificial intelligence could undermine confidence in Bitcoin’s security and cause its price to fall by more than 50% within two years.

Investor and AI-risk commentator Liron Shapira assigned a “50% confidence” level to his prediction that Bitcoin would suffer such a decline because AI could weaken what users consider the network’s security or robustness, according to his original post.

Buterin said he took “the opposite side” of that forecast. His response focused on Bitcoin’s technical adaptability rather than its market price, arguing that most AI-related threats could be addressed without changing the network’s core social agreement.

Buterin sees transition risk rather than cryptographic collapse

Buterin said he remains optimistic about cybersecurity over the long term. In his view, the main risk lies in managing the transition to a world where attackers and defenders both use increasingly capable AI systems.

He separated operational attacks from failures of Bitcoin’s underlying cryptography. Network-layer exploits, client vulnerabilities and attacks against mining infrastructure could require software updates, but they would not necessarily invalidate Bitcoin’s proof-of-work design.

Bitcoin’s network consists of several layers. Full-node software verifies transactions and blocks. Mining pools coordinate hash power, while miners provide the computing equipment that performs proof-of-work calculations. Internet infrastructure connects those participants.

AI could help attackers identify flaws in node software, wallet code, mining-pool systems or communications infrastructure. Defenders can also use AI to review code, test updates and detect suspicious behavior.

Buterin argued that client developers and mining pools could respond to those attacks through ordinary upgrades. Such changes would be less difficult than an emergency alteration of Bitcoin’s monetary rules or transaction history.

He described the probability of “actual breaks on hashes or PoW” as “tiny.” The statement is an assessment rather than a measurable guarantee, and it does not cover every cybersecurity risk affecting Bitcoin users.

Bitcoin’s proof of work is not the likeliest AI target

Bitcoin mining depends on SHA-256, the hash function used to process block headers and prove that miners performed computational work. A direct cryptographic break would require an attacker to find a practical weakness that sharply reduces the work needed to produce valid hashes.

However, Current generative AI systems have not demonstrated that capability. AI can improve software analysis and automate attack discovery, but it does not automatically defeat established cryptographic functions. An attacker also could not take control of Bitcoin simply by producing persuasive text, malicious code suggestions or automated social engineering. Compromising wallets, exchanges or individual developers would create losses, but it would not necessarily compromise Bitcoin’s consensus rules.

The more realistic near-term risks involve surrounding infrastructure. AI agents may improve phishing, credential theft, malware development and vulnerability discovery. Mining pools, exchanges, wallet providers and node operators could face more automated attacks.

A July security incident showed the distinction. Bitcoin Optech reported that a weakness in some COLDCARD-generated wallets produced insufficient entropy and exposed affected funds to theft. The problem involved wallet key generation rather than Bitcoin’s hash function or proof-of-work mechanism.

The technical report estimated losses exceeding 1,000 BTC at the time. Users of affected devices were advised to move funds to wallets created with secure external entropy.

Such incidents can damage confidence and cause major losses while leaving Bitcoin’s underlying ledger operational. They support Buterin’s argument that ecosystem software and custody remain more immediate attack surfaces than SHA-256.

AI could accelerate both attacks and defensive reviews

Shapira’s forecast appears to rest on an imbalance between attackers and defenders. Advanced AI could discover vulnerabilities faster than open-source developers can examine, patch and distribute software.

Bitcoin’s public codebase gives researchers broad access, but it also allows attackers to inspect the same software. A sufficiently capable automated system could review large repositories, identify unusual interactions and test attack paths continuously.

The Bitcoin Policy Institute and more than 40 digital-asset organizations raised that concern in August. They asked leading AI laboratories to provide vetted open-source security teams with controlled access to advanced models.

The coalition argued that defenders need early access to the same tools that sophisticated attackers may use. Its proposed program included computing resources, secure testing environments and direct communication with AI laboratory security teams.

Block, Coinbase, Strategy, MARA, Galaxy, BitGo, Brink, Trezor and several Bitcoin development groups supported the appeal. Crypto.news reported that the coalition sought frontier AI access for Bitcoin security researchers before more capable models became widely available.

A separate assessment from Bitcoin Policy Institute researcher Zack Shapiro and security specialist Efrat Fenigson’s coverage warned that the next several years could present a difficult transition. The concern was not that AI would directly solve Bitcoin’s proof of work, but that attackers could gain access to capable security tools before defenders.

As crypto.news previously reported, researchers warned that Bitcoin developers could fall behind AI-assisted attackers without comparable models, funding and computing access.

Social consensus would matter after a deeper failure

Buterin distinguished upgradeable operational problems from attacks that require social consensus. Bitcoin nodes and mining pools can adopt patched software when developers identify a conventional vulnerability.

A deeper cryptographic failure would be more difficult. If an attacker could forge digital signatures or bypass proof-of-work requirements, developers might need to introduce new cryptographic standards and coordinate a broad network migration.

Node operators, miners, exchanges, custodians and users would then need to agree on which software and transaction history to recognize. Disagreement could split the network or delay protective action.

Quantum computing is frequently discussed in this context because a sufficiently capable machine could threaten the elliptic-curve signatures protecting some Bitcoin holdings. That issue differs from Shapira’s AI claim because quantum computers use different computing methods rather than machine-learning techniques.

Crypto.news has reported that developers are exploring quantum-resistant infrastructure and migration tools before practical attacks emerge. Estimates about when such systems could threaten Bitcoin remain uncertain.

Buterin did not claim Bitcoin could respond easily to every cryptographic break. His argument was that those fundamental failures have a very low probability, while more plausible network attacks can be addressed through coordinated software changes.

Bitcoin showed no reaction tied directly to the debate

Bitcoin traded near $79,590 on Sept. 7, down approximately 0.5% during the latest session. Its intraday range was roughly $79,460 to $80,494.

There was no evidence connecting that movement to the exchange between Shapira and Buterin. Bitcoin’s price responds to liquidity, derivatives positioning, exchange-traded fund flows, macroeconomic data and broader risk sentiment.

Shapira’s prediction also does not specify a technical attack, affected software component or sequence connecting AI adoption to a 50% market decline. It is a probabilistic forecast and cannot be treated as a verified security assessment.

Buterin similarly offered no formal risk model supporting his confidence. His response provides a technical counterargument: Bitcoin can patch many operational vulnerabilities, while a direct break of its hash function or proof-of-work mechanism remains unlikely.

The dispute therefore concerns the speed and difficulty of Bitcoin’s security transition rather than evidence that AI has already compromised the network.