EUR/USD sits near 1.1610, just off a one-month low, as tomorrow’s Fed decision looms as the week’s true catalyst. The ECB delivered its second hike of the year on September 10, lifting the deposit rate to 2.50% and warning that Middle East-driven inflation pressures will keep price growth well above target for an extended period. Lagarde called the move a “no-brainer”, yet the euro barely reacted; the hike had been fully priced in, and markets are already pricing more ECB tightening than the central bank’s own projections suggest is needed.

The real action lies across the Atlantic. Thursday’s hotter-than-expected US CPI print pushed September Fed hike odds sharply higher, from 67% to 88% intraday, though the dollar has struggled to fully capitalise as falling oil prices pull Treasury yields back from three-year highs near 4.99%. Adding political noise, President Trump has reportedly pressed Fed Chair Kevin Warsh directly on rate cuts, a claim Trump himself has downplayed, just as the Fed enters its blackout period ahead of Tuesday’s meeting.

The result: an ECB that has already delivered its hawkish surprise with muted market impact, against a Fed whose next move, and its independence from political pressure, could prove far more consequential for EUR/USD heading into Wednesday.

Technical Analysis of EUR/USD

As the EUR/USD chart shows, the pair has recently broken below the ascending trendline that had guided the entire late-July recovery, a genuine shift in structure, and has now also lost the 200-period EMA and the 0.382 Fibonacci confluence near 1.1580, both of which had served as reliable support during the advance. Price is currently testing the 0.5 retracement near 1.1533, a key level in its own right.

Bullish Scenario

Should buyers reclaim the 0.5 support and stage a recovery, the first real test becomes the confluence of the 200-period EMA and the 0.382 retracement near 1.1580, now flipped into resistance. A confirmed break back above that zone would open the path towards retesting the broken ascending trendline, which itself converges near the last resistance on the chart.

Bearish Scenario

Conversely, a decisive break below the 0.5 retracement would confirm the bearish structure taking hold, exposing the 0.618 level near 1.1490, precisely where the broken descending trendline now sits as a potential resistance-turned-support test on the way down. A failure to hold there would risk a deeper slide towards the 0.786 retracement near 1.1430.

With price having just lost both its ascending trendline and the 200-period EMA in quick succession, EUR/USD’s next move looks set to determine whether Wednesday’s Fed decision accelerates this correction, or gives buyers a reason to defend the 0.5 support first.

Trade over 50 forex markets 24 hours a day with FXOpen. Take advantage of low commissions, deep liquidity, and spreads from 0.0 pips (additional fees may apply). Open your FXOpen account now or learn more about trading forex with FXOpen.

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.

Brazil’s crypto market has entered a regulatory shakeout, with industry estimates indicating that fewer than 10% of companies currently operating in the country are likely to seek Central Bank authorization before an October deadline.

Valor Investe reported that people closely following the licensing process estimate Brazil has between 150 and 200 domestic and foreign companies providing virtual asset services, although some industry estimates put the figure closer to 300. Only 20 to 25 are expected to have the capital, structure or interest needed to apply, while roughly 10 could ultimately secure authorization as digital asset service providers, known locally as PSAVs.

Companies that were providing virtual asset services before the new rules took effect in February have until Oct. 30 to file the first stage of their authorization request. Businesses that do not enter the process by the deadline will have 30 days to stop operating.

The estimates remain unofficial, and the number of applications will not become clear until the filing period closes. Financial institutions that already hold a banking license from the Central Bank do not need a separate authorization to operate in the sector, while fund managers remain under the regulatory framework of Brazil’s Securities and Exchange Commission, or CVM.

Brazil crypto licensing could leave around 10 authorized firms

Several crypto businesses have already restructured or withdrawn from Brazil as the authorization deadline approaches.

Bitnuvem closed its operations this year, citing higher operating costs and regulatory requirements among the reasons for its decision. NovaDAX followed in June, ending its Brazilian operation under an agreement that allowed customers to migrate to Foxbit.

Digitra.com later closed its retail business and directed customers to Foxbit, while BTG Pactual incorporated its Mynt crypto platform into the bank’s existing platforms. The move brought the group’s digital asset activities within BTG Pactual’s existing structure.

Bitso changed its Brazilian retail model in early September through a partnership with Mercado Bitcoin. Retail customers in the country are being directed to invest through Mercado Bitcoin, while Bitso is concentrating its local business on infrastructure and institutional services.

Coinext subsequently announced that it would close its retail operation after nearly a decade, ending crypto trading and custody services for those customers. Coinext Asset, its institutional asset management business, will continue operating.

Unlike some of the earlier exits, Coinext directly cited the new regulatory environment when explaining its decision. The company said it assessed the requirements for remaining in the market, held discussions with potential partners and considered alternatives, but found no viable option.

Industry participants cited by Valor Investe said further customer portfolio transfers are under negotiation, meaning more restructuring announcements could emerge before the transition period ends.

Capital requirements have raised the entry threshold

Capital requirements have become one of the main issues facing companies deciding whether to seek authorization.

During Public Consultation 109/2024, the Central Bank proposed minimum share capital of R$1 million for virtual asset intermediaries such as exchanges, R$2 million for custodians and R$3 million for brokers carrying out both activities.

The final rules announced in November set considerably higher requirements. Depending on a company’s activities and risk profile, required capital can range from R$10.8 million to R$37.2 million.

The authorization process extends beyond capital. Companies must meet requirements covering governance, internal controls, risk management, security, anti-money laundering procedures, technical certification, audits and periodic regulatory reporting.

Brazil approved another set of capital and risk rules in July, as crypto.news previously reported. The requirements begin taking effect in January 2027 and will eventually place virtual asset service providers in the S4 regulatory segment by June 2028. Smaller S5 institutions will no longer be permitted to provide virtual asset services.

The licensing framework already requires applicants and companies seeking license renewals to provide independent audit reports. Auditors must assess areas including anti-money laundering controls, segregation of customer assets, internal risk management and employee compliance programs.

Licensed exchanges face another requirement from Jan. 1, 2027, when they must provide daily asset sufficiency reports showing they hold enough assets to cover operational and security risks.

Regulatory timetable has drawn industry concerns

Ripple’s Latin America public policy and regulatory director, Isabel Sica Longhi, said the pressure was not limited to the substance of the requirements. She pointed to the pace at which new measures were introduced while companies were still adapting to earlier rules.

“The biggest problem was this sequencing, where everything came together very quickly, without even waiting to see whether the risks that the Central Bank intended to address with Resolutions 519, 520 and 521 would actually be addressed before adjusting the rules,” Longhi said, according to Valor Investe.

Executives cited in the report said the Central Bank had set a high regulatory threshold after problems involving fintech companies. Sources pointed to fraud, cyberattacks, third-party use of accounts and weak control structures as issues that contributed to the regulator’s approach.

Security requirements have continued to expand. In August, the Central Bank introduced rules requiring certain crypto transfers above $10,000 to be held for as long as 24 hours from Jan. 1, 2027 when funds are being sent to foreign virtual asset providers or self-custody wallets. Providers may release transactions earlier after completing the required risk review.

The regulator has separately developed a real-time crypto threat alert system with Hypernative after attackers converted part of the proceeds from a major cyberattack into cryptocurrency. Foxbit and Mercado Bitcoin were among the companies preparing to participate in the threat monitoring network.

Smaller crypto companies face higher compliance costs

Companies expected to remain in Brazil have not uniformly opposed tighter oversight. One executive quoted by Valor Investe described compliance as a necessary part of operating in a regulated market, saying that “regulation is not something you cry about, you comply with it.”

The executive said clear rules and Central Bank supervision were necessary for the sector to mature, while arguing that the chosen calibration could reduce innovation by excluding smaller companies and business models unable to absorb regulatory costs.

Longhi similarly described some reduction in the number of companies as a natural part of regulation but drew a distinction between removing unsuitable operators and excluding businesses simply because of their size.

“The thinning of the market is natural and should happen anyway,” she said. “What is not natural, if it happens, is preventing the market from existing and removing small participants simply because they are small participants.”

Brazilian banks, meanwhile, have been expanding access to digital assets while operating under their existing regulatory structures. Itaú, Bradesco, Santander, Banco do Brasil and Nubank have expanded crypto services since 2025, while Central Bank filings from March showed that the banks held no virtual assets on their own balance sheets. Nubank offered 28 digital assets to more than 7 million crypto customers, while Itaú offered 15 assets through its investment platform.

Mercado Bitcoin has continued expanding during the regulatory transition. Tether invested $20 million in the company in July as part of a strategic financing round focused on tokenized assets, payments, lending and onchain capital markets. Mercado Bitcoin said at the time that it served 4.5 million users and had issued more than R$2 billion in tokenized assets.

The final number of companies entering the Central Bank authorization process will become clearer after Oct. 30. Until then, industry participants cited by Valor Investe expect further closures, customer migrations, mergers and partnerships as companies decide whether to seek their own authorization or operate through other regulated structures.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has ruled out a 2026 initial public offering, citing unfinished safety and alignment work while leaving the company without a confirmed listing date.

Fortune reported on Sept. 12 that Altman called the current period an “ill-advised moment” to go public and said OpenAI felt no pressure to pursue an offering.

Asked whether an IPO had moved from 2026 to 2027, Altman replied, “I would say not 2026.” He said OpenAI had substantial work remaining on safety, alignment and cooperation between governments and the AI industry.

His answer rules out a listing this year but does not establish a 2027 offering. OpenAI has not publicly disclosed a listing date, stock exchange, ticker, price range or number of shares to be offered.

OpenAI IPO has no confirmed 2027 date

Some reports have described 2027 as the earliest possible date for an OpenAI IPO. Altman did not commit to that timetable during the interview. He said the company would go public when its business was ready and when conditions surrounding the technology supported that decision.

The distinction is important to the factual record. OpenAI did not have a publicly announced 2026 offering that it formally postponed. The company remains privately held, and no publicly available registration statement identifies an active OpenAI stock sale.

Media reports have previously linked the company to a possible listing carrying a valuation of up to $1 trillion. OpenAI has not confirmed that estimate. Any valuation attached to a future offering would depend on its financial results, investor demand, capital structure and the terms disclosed at the time.

A traditional U.S. IPO would require a registration statement containing business, financial, management and risk information. The SEC says Form S-1 is the basic registration form available to companies and must contain a prospectus with audited financial statements.

OpenAI has not announced when it might begin such a process. Altman’s comments leave 2027 possible, but describing that year as a confirmed IPO schedule would go beyond his statement.

Safety work takes priority over listing preparations

During the Fortune interview, Altman connected the decision to rapid advances in artificial intelligence and unresolved questions about controlling increasingly capable systems. He said safety standards were not yet ready for the industry to push capabilities much further without additional safeguards.

OpenAI has discussed pausing at certain capability levels, Altman said, giving researchers and institutions time to improve alignment measures. He did not identify a model release, capability threshold or binding protocol that would trigger a pause.

The CEO called for cooperation among competing AI developers and governments. Any international arrangement remains prospective because OpenAI has not released a signed agreement, participating organizations or enforcement terms.

Altman framed the IPO decision as part of OpenAI’s ability to place its mission ahead of immediate shareholder returns. A public company would face reporting duties and market expectations, though he did not claim those requirements made responsible AI development impossible.

No direct market reaction exists for OpenAI shares because the company is not publicly traded. Private-market transactions and reported valuation estimates do not provide the continuous price discovery associated with a listed stock.

Independent evaluator proposal awaits details

Altman’s remarks followed a proposal from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei calling for slower development of frontier AI systems. Amodei urged laboratories to provide qualified independent evaluators with access resembling that available to employees.

Altman publicly supported the evaluator proposal and said OpenAI would adopt a similar measure. The company has not yet published the evaluators’ selection process, technical access, confidentiality rules or authority over model deployments.

Independent access could involve exposure to internal models, testing tools and security-sensitive information. OpenAI has not specified how it would separate external review from access controls protecting proprietary technology and user data.

Elon Musk supported Amodei’s warning with the brief statement, “Dario is right.” His endorsement did not include a technical framework or a commitment describing how xAI would apply the proposed controls.

The XRP Ledger has processed 3,254 transactions in one ledger, setting a reported single-ledger record on Sept. 14.

Validator operator Vet reported the figure after reviewing the ledger and said most entries were one-drop XRP payments. He described the activity as a possible throughput test, although the sender’s purpose has not been confirmed.

A drop is one-millionth of one XRP, making it the smallest unit recorded by the network. The high transaction count therefore represented many small transfers, not an unusually large amount of XRP moving between accounts.

The ledger index and initiating account were not identified in Vet’s public post. Without those details, the record claim relies on his analysis and cannot be compared through the post alone with every earlier ledger in XRPL history.

Tiny XRP payments dominated the record ledger

Most of the 3,254 transactions were simple payments carrying one drop of XRP, according to Vet. Simple native-asset transfers require less processing work than transactions involving decentralized exchange orders, NFTs or cross-currency payment paths.

“I don’t know why this person is doing these transactions, but it looks like throughput testing, probably,” Vet said. The description remains speculative because the account owner has not publicly explained the activity.

Transaction count does not show how much computational work a ledger required. A ledger containing thousands of direct XRP payments can place a different load on validators than one containing fewer trades, token operations or complex payment paths.

“Not all transactions are equal in load footprint,” Vet said. He estimated that 500 simple XRP payments could create less stress than 200 transactions that require extensive decentralized exchange processing.

Official XRPL documentation states that each validated ledger records the transactions applied to the preceding ledger state. The associated metadata provides the result and effects of each included transaction.

Transactions with a tesSUCCESS result completed their requested action. Entries carrying a tec result remain recorded and consume a fee, even when they fail to perform the requested operation. The reported total of 3,254 therefore describes included transactions, not necessarily 3,254 successful transfers.

XRP Ledger capacity uses an adaptive target

The XRP Ledger does not use one permanent transaction limit for every ledger. Its servers adjust operating conditions in response to transaction volume, network latency and consensus performance.

Vet said the network can raise its soft transaction target when a heavily loaded ledger closes within the expected period. When close times move beyond the preferred range, the network can reduce the target to help validators return to normal timing.

XRPL documentation says servers exchange proposals until trusted validators agree on a transaction set. Each server then calculates the new ledger state and distributes a signed validation containing the resulting ledger hash.

A supermajority of trusted validators must agree on the same hash before the ledger becomes validated. Once validated, its transactions and resulting state become final parts of XRPL’s ledger history.

The 3,254-transaction result consequently provides evidence that validators agreed on a ledger carrying that number of entries. It does not establish a new permanent throughput rate, because sustained capacity depends on transaction complexity, hardware, network conditions and consecutive ledger close times.

Throughput measured from one ledger differs from transactions per second over an extended period. A short burst can place many pending payments into a single ledger, while the following ledgers may return to normal activity.

No performance report from Ripple, the XRP Ledger Foundation or the network’s reference software maintainers had confirmed a permanent capacity change following the record. No service interruption or failed consensus round was reported in connection with the burst.

Recent activity has included heavier payments and trading

The record occurred after a period of increased XRPL payment and trading activity. In related coverage, XRP Ledger order-book volume rose 79% year over year during the second quarter of 2026, according to an Evernorth report.

Average daily order-book volume reached 3.57 million XRP during the quarter, while the number of daily traders fell from 1,864 to 1,111. Evernorth said average volume per trading account nearly tripled during the same comparison period.

Stablecoin transfers have created another source of network use. As crypto.news reported, RLUSD generated approximately $9 billion in first-half transfer volume on XRPL during 2026.

Such activity is separate from the one-drop transfers identified in the record ledger. No evidence cited by Vet connected the 3,254 transactions to RLUSD, institutional settlement, exchange trading or customer payments.

The sender could have been testing transaction submission, ledger packing or another technical process. The available account pattern does not confirm whether the activity came from a developer, institution, automated service or individual user.

BatchV1_1 moves through the amendment process

The record arrived while validators were considering protocol features introduced with version 3.3.0 of rippled, the network’s reference server software. The XRP Ledger Foundation released version 3.3.0 on Aug. 6.

Its proposed features include BatchV1_1, ConfidentialTransfer, DynamicMPT, PermissionDelegationV1_1 and Sponsor. Each feature follows the XRPL amendment process before it can become active across the main network.

BatchV1_1 would allow multiple transactions to be bundled and processed together. Official XRPL records say it replaces the earlier Batch amendment after developers found a critical bug in the original implementation.

The feature does not explain the 3,254-transaction ledger because BatchV1_1 had not completed mainnet activation when the activity occurred. Its presence in the server release means validators can review and vote on the amendment.

XRPL’s amendment rules require more than 80% support from trusted validators for two continuous weeks. If support falls to 80% or lower before the period ends, the countdown resets.

ConfidentialTransfer would introduce shielded balances and transfer amounts for Multi-Purpose Tokens while providing viewing mechanisms for authorized parties. DynamicMPT would permit issuers to change selected token settings unless they make those properties permanently immutable.

PermissionDelegationV1_1 replaces an earlier delegation feature that developers disabled after finding a critical bug. The updated amendment would let XRPL accounts assign limited permissions to other accounts after validator approval.

No activation date is guaranteed for amendments still under voting. Validator operators can change their votes, and the network checks amendment support around flag ledgers, which occur approximately every 15 minutes.