Ethiopia has reportedly cut the electricity it delivers to Bitcoin mining operations amid worsening drought conditions tied to El Niño, according to Bloomberg. The reduction reportedly brought miner power down to 23% of contracted levels as lower water inflows strained the country’s hydroelectric system.

In a Tuesday report, Bloomberg said El Niño intensified dry weather across eastern Africa, reducing reservoir inflows by 20%. Ethiopian Electric Power (EEP) chief executive Ashebir Balcha told the outlet that the utility prioritized households and industrial customers as hydropower availability fell.

Key takeaways

• Ethiopia reportedly reduced Bitcoin mining power deliveries to 23% of contracted levels due to a 20% drop in reservoir inflows, according to Bloomberg.
• EEP says it cut miner supply in stages—initially to 75% of contracted levels—before easing further to 50% and then 23%.
• With miners reportedly taking 35% of EEP revenue last fiscal year and using close to one-third of national electricity output, the decision highlights how mining supply depends on hydrology.
• EEP plans a reassessment in October, with potential for deeper reductions or electricity export restrictions.

Hydropower shortage forces EEP to prioritize demand

EEP’s decision underscores the vulnerability of mining operations that rely on affordable, flexible electricity sourced from hydropower. Bloomberg reported that EEP began by cutting deliveries to 75% of contracted levels, then lowered deliveries to 50%, before ultimately reaching 23% as reservoir inflows continued to weaken.

The executive’s rationale was straightforward: in periods of constrained hydropower generation, utilities typically must allocate electricity to essential consumption first. Balcha indicated that EEP would reassess conditions in October, and that the company could respond with additional reductions or even restrict electricity exports to neighboring countries if supply tightness persists.

For miners with long-term power arrangements, staged curtailments can materially affect operating costs and uptime. They may also raise questions about how renewable-leaning power contracts are structured during extreme weather—especially when the same electricity must serve both residential and industrial users.

Why Ethiopia’s mining share makes curtailments consequential

Bitcoin mining’s footprint in Ethiopia is unusually large relative to many jurisdictions, which is why a hydro-driven cut can ripple through both energy economics and broader mining capacity decisions.

Bloomberg reported that miners accounted for 35% of EEP’s revenue in the last fiscal year and consume almost one-third of Ethiopia’s electricity output. That concentration means a contraction in deliveries affects EEP’s income stream, while also demonstrating how miners’ ability to operate can be limited by national supply constraints.

The country’s low-cost hydropower has also helped attract overseas mining capacity. Bloomberg noted international interest, including Phoenix Group, which expanded its Ethiopian mining capacity to 132 megawatts in April 2025, following earlier additions covered by Cointelegraph. Earlier buildouts suggest investors have been willing to underwrite costs based on access to relatively inexpensive electricity—an assumption now directly challenged by drought conditions.

More restrictive mining economics after Bitcoin halvings

Beyond Ethiopia’s immediate supply pressures, a separate discussion among Bitcoin analysts is pointing to broader headwinds for mining demand for electricity and capital. Economist Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard, argued in a Tuesday post on X that global Bitcoin mining electricity consumption and capital expenditure may have peaked in 2024 to 2025.

Ammous’s reasoning centers on Bitcoin’s halving mechanism, which cuts the block reward miners receive by half roughly every four years. He suggested that if mining rewards keep shrinking in dollar terms, mining operations could slow or contract unless there is a significant counterweight—such as a sustained rise in Bitcoin’s price.

In the same post, Ammous said Bitcoin would need to increase more than 18.92% per year to keep the dollar value of newly mined coins growing, even before accounting for dollar depreciation. The argument effectively ties mining profitability to two variables: the mechanical reduction in issuance and the market price offsetting that reduction.

He also referenced price weakness, noting that Yahoo Finance data shows Bitcoin is down more than 35% over the past 12 months. In that context, Ammous said it would be expected for mining activity to slow, contract, or at least not expand—unless mining metrics improve.

AI computing competition may further complicate mining’s power equation

Ammous also raised a competitive angle: artificial intelligence data centers may provide an alternative use for power and infrastructure that miners otherwise monetize. The logic is that when mining returns weaken, electricity access and specialized connectivity can become more attractive for other high-demand compute consumers.

To support that perspective, he cited VanEck data, and Miner Weekly’s June estimate that public miners could require around $50 billion to build planned AI infrastructure. The implication is not that miners abandon Bitcoin entirely overnight, but that weaker mining economics may encourage some companies to redirect capital toward AI-related opportunities.

Ammous framed his conclusions as a testable hypothesis. He acknowledged that significantly higher transaction fees—or a sustained recovery above Bitcoin’s previous electricity-consumption peak—could invalidate the view that mining power demand has topped out.

For now, Ethiopia’s curtailment adds a concrete, near-term reminder that mining depends not only on market prices and halving cycles, but also on local energy availability and national policy tradeoffs. Readers should watch EEP’s October reassessment for potential additional constraints, alongside broader industry signals on whether global mining electricity use stabilizes or declines as reward economics continue to tighten.

Celsius Network’s bankruptcy estate has sued BitMEX for the return of 6,360.17 Bitcoin, worth about $495 million, over forced liquidations carried out during the March 2020 COVID market crash.

The complaint, filed on Sep. 12 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, accuses BitMEX-linked companies of fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment tied to the exchange’s liquidation system.

Blockchain Recovery Investment Consortium filed the case in its role as litigation administrator under Celsius’ bankruptcy plan. The defendants are HDR Global Trading, ABS Global Trading, Shine Effort, 100x Holdings and HDR Global Services.

Operating through several jurisdictions, the named entities have links to Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, England, Hong Kong, the Seychelles and the United States. The filing places the dispute before a U.S. bankruptcy court because the contested claims form part of the remaining assets being pursued for Celsius creditors.

Celsius estate seeks 6,360 BTC from BitMEX

According to the complaint, Celsius lost 1,325.84 BTC when BitMEX liquidated its position on March 12, 2020. Investment fund JST lost another 5,034.33 BTC through a liquidation the following day and later assigned its claims to the Celsius estate.

The two positions were structured to earn a return if Bitcoin either held its value or rose, the estate said. Bitcoin instead fell sharply as global markets reacted to the spread of Covid-19, with the sell-off producing one of the most volatile periods in the cryptocurrency’s history.

During the disorder, leveraged positions on derivatives exchanges faced margin calls and forced closures. Celsius and JST allege that BitMEX did more than close their positions to cover trading losses, claiming the exchange took control of Bitcoin collateral that should have been returned.

At the roughly $77,800 valuation used in the supplied claim, the combined 6,360.17 BTC is worth close to $495 million. The value of any potential recovery would still depend on the court’s findings and the form of relief granted, as the lawsuit remains at the complaint stage.

The litigation administrator is pursuing the Bitcoin itself rather than limiting the demand to its dollar value in March 2020. Its claims include fraudulent transfer, conversion, breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.

BitMEX allegedly controlled both sides of liquidations

At the center of the case is BitMEX’s control over the mechanism that determined when leveraged positions would be closed. The Celsius estate alleges that the exchange also controlled the insurance fund that received assets generated by some liquidations, creating a financial interest in how the process operated.

“BitMEX intentionally designed its platform and liquidation procedures to cause liquidations of collateral and defraud its own customers,” the complaint says.

Rather than sell only enough collateral to settle an account’s obligations, BitMEX allegedly retained excess Bitcoin after closing positions. The defendants have not been found liable for the conduct described in the filing, and the allegations will need to be tested through the U.S. court process.

Similar claims appeared in a proposed class action filed in July by BKX Services and trader David Namdar. As crypto.news previously reported, the plaintiffs alleged that BitMEX engineered forced liquidations and retained 622.66 BTC that should have gone back to customers.

BKX said it lost at least 305.81 BTC, while Namdar claimed losses of more than 316.85 BTC. Their case also alleged that BitMEX’s internal trading operation had access to private customer information and could continue operating during server outages that stopped users from managing their positions.

The proposed class action seeks to represent eligible U.S. traders who used BitMEX’s Bitcoin perpetual swap products in transactions dating back to July 23, 2018. Celsius’ complaint is separate and concerns losses from March 2020, although both cases challenge how the exchange handled customer collateral during forced liquidations.

The case adds another asset-recovery effort for creditors

Celsius’ pursuit of BitMEX forms part of the litigation left behind by the crypto lender’s Chapter 11 case. Celsius froze withdrawals in June 2022 and filed for bankruptcy the following month after losses and liquidity problems left customers unable to retrieve their assets.

Court records later raised questions about the gap between the lender’s public claims and its trading practices. Celsius had promoted strategies such as arbitrage, carry trades and funding-rate harvesting as relatively low-risk ways to generate returns for depositors.

A July 2022 bankruptcy filing said the company had instead used “several highly speculative derivative and asset deployment mechanisms.” Court-appointed examiner Shoba Pillay’s final report also documented trading, risk-control and recordkeeping failures inside the lender.

The BitMEX position described in the new complaint relied on pooled customer assets and carried leveraged exposure during a severe market decline. Although the liquidation allegedly harmed Celsius, the bankruptcy records show that the lender itself had exposed customer funds to speculative trades while presenting its business as safer than its internal practices suggested.

Celsius began working through its repayment plan after a New York bankruptcy judge approved its restructuring. In January 2024, the company started distributing assets under a plan that provided more than $3 billion in cryptocurrency and other property to creditors.

Creditor recoveries later included shares in Ionic Digital, a Bitcoin mining company created through the restructuring. Former Celsius creditors received about 37 million Class A shares, and Ionic subsequently secured SEC approval for its planned Nasdaq listing in July.

A third payout round began in August 2025 with approximately $220.6 million allocated to eligible creditors. Recoveries obtained through estate litigation can add assets to the bankruptcy process, although the BitMEX complaint does not guarantee a payment or set a timetable for resolving the claims.

BitMEX faces the lawsuit before its Sep. 23 closure

The Celsius action is the second lawsuit challenging BitMEX’s liquidation practices since the exchange announced in July that it would close. BitMEX instructed customers to wind down positions and withdraw funds before trading ends on Sep. 23.

Founded in 2014, the exchange became known for offering highly leveraged cryptocurrency derivatives, including its Bitcoin perpetual swap. Its influence later declined as competition increased and regulated futures platforms gained more institutional business.

BitMEX has also faced prior action from U.S. authorities. In January 2025, a federal judge ordered HDR Global Trading to pay a $100 million criminal fine after the company admitted violating the Bank Secrecy Act by operating without an adequate anti-money-laundering program.

The criminal case concerned BitMEX’s compliance controls between 2015 and 2020, not the liquidation conduct alleged by Celsius. U.S. prosecutors said the exchange had served American customers without the required safeguards, while earlier civil proceedings brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network produced settlements of up to $100 million.

BitMEX co-founders Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo, and Samuel Reed had pleaded guilty in 2022 to Bank Secrecy Act violations. President Donald Trump pardoned the three founders in 2025, along with former executive Gregory Dwyer and the corporate entities connected to the exchange.

Bitcoin price traded near $76,200 after a volatile week as the failed CLARITY Act vote and the Federal Reserve’s rate increase kept pressure on the market. Technical indicators now point to resistance near $78,600, while liquidation data places the main downside liquidity cluster around $74,600.

Bitcoin price retreats after rejection near $80,000

According to data from crypto.news, Bitcoin (BTC) was trading near $76,236 at the time of writing, according to the daily chart. The cryptocurrency had recovered from an intraday low of $75,065 after opening the session around $75,644.

BTC has lost roughly 4% over the past seven days after failing to hold an advance toward $80,000. Price briefly reached approximately $79,800 on Sep. 11 before sellers regained control, sending it as low as $74,944 on Sep. 15.

The weekly decline followed the U.S. Senate’s failure to advance the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act. The procedural measure received 50 votes in favor and 49 against but needed 60 votes to move forward.

The proposed legislation sought to define how the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission would divide oversight of digital assets. Its failure reduced the prospect of Congress establishing a federal crypto market structure before the November midterm elections.

Macroeconomic conditions added to the pressure. The Federal Reserve raised its target rate by 25 basis points to a range of 3.75% to 4.00% on Sep. 16, delivering its first increase since 2023.

Bitcoin briefly reacted to the widely expected decision but remained close to its four-week low. Higher rates can reduce demand for non-yielding and risk-sensitive assets by raising returns available from government debt and strengthening the U.S. dollar.

Daily Bitcoin indicators show weakening demand

The daily chart shows BTC trading below its 20-day simple moving average at $78,104. Reclaiming that level would be an early sign that buyers are regaining short-term control.

Bitcoin remains above the other major averages shown on the chart. The 50-day SMA stands near $71,933, while the 200-day and 100-day averages sit around $70,320 and $67,639, respectively.

The distance between the current price and those longer-term averages means the wider recovery from Bitcoin’s summer lows has not yet broken down. However, failure to recover the 20-day average could expose the lower moving-average cluster between $70,300 and $71,900.

Chaikin Money Flow has fallen to -0.11 after spending much of late August and early September above zero. A negative CMF reading indicates that selling pressure has exceeded buying pressure over the indicator’s 20-period window.

The change is notable because the CMF weakened as Bitcoin retreated from the $80,000 area. A return above zero would signal improving capital flows, while a deeper negative reading would add weight to the bearish setup.

Bitcoin faces 4-hour resistance at $78,600

Bitcoin’s 4-hour chart keeps the short-term trend bearish. The Supertrend indicator has flipped above the price and now marks resistance near $78,597.

BTC also trades below the indicator’s previous support line around $76,648. Bulls would need to reclaim that level before challenging the heavier resistance zone between $78,100 and $78,600.

The 4-hour Relative Strength Index stands at 43.01, slightly above its signal average of 42.54 but below the neutral 50 mark. The reading shows weak momentum without placing Bitcoin in oversold territory, leaving room for another decline if support fails.

Initial support sits between $75,000 and $75,500, covering the Sep. 15 low and the recent 4-hour range floor. A confirmed break below that area could send BTC toward the daily moving-average region near $71,900.

Crypto trader Daan Crypto Trades said Bitcoin was positioned near its August lows and the 4-hour 200-period moving averages after two major events dominated the previous week.

“Getting them out of the way, regardless of outcome, should make price action a bit less choppy,” the trader said.

A move through $78,600 would invalidate the immediate bearish Supertrend signal and place $80,000 back in focus. Failure to clear the indicator would preserve the pattern of lower highs visible since early September.

Liquidation heatmap puts $74,600 in focus

CoinGlass’s three-day liquidation heatmap shows the largest nearby pool of leveraged positions around $74,600 to $74,700. The concentration sits below the recent low and could attract price if sellers push BTC beneath $75,000.

Liquidity is also concentrated above the market. The closest large bands appear between approximately $76,600 and $76,900, followed by a stronger zone around $77,500 to $77,800.

Further clusters are visible near $78,300 and $80,000. A rebound through the closest overhead bands could force short liquidations and accelerate a move toward the 4-hour Supertrend resistance.

The heatmap does not predict direction, but it identifies areas where forced position closures could increase volatility. With liquidity sitting on both sides of the current price, BTC could continue to produce sharp moves until it closes outside the $74,600–$78,600 range.

Ali Martinez identified $71,200 as another downside area, based on Bitcoin’s short-term holder realized price. The metric represents the average acquisition price of coins held by newer investors and can act as an important level during market corrections.

BlackRock, DTCC, Intercontinental Exchange, Mastercard, Standard Chartered and Visa are among Arc’s founding validators, while BNY, HSBC and State Street are some of the 100+ institutions and ecosystem companies live on or exploring the network.

Trading venues on Arc include Uniswap and Aerodrome, while Aave and Morpho are providing lending markets. Tokenized money market funds including Circle’s USYC and BlackRock’s BUIDL are also coming to the network.

Allaire called Arc a “canonical home for asset issuers,” where funds, equities, commodities and currencies could be issued before moving to other blockchain ecosystems through Circle’s interoperability infrastructure.

Circle Payments Network is also being integrated directly into Arc alongside StableFX, its foreign-exchange platform for 24/7 cross-currency settlement.

Arc was designed around some of the friction that has kept traditional financial institutions from using existing blockchains, Allaire said.

Circle is developing configurable privacy for institutions that need to shield transaction data while retaining access for auditors and regulators.

Transaction fees are paid in USDC rather than a volatile native token, with sub-second finality and a permissioned validator set.

Balancing act

Allaire compared requiring companies to hold a blockchain’s native token just to use the network with making Netflix buy Amazon shares to pay its Amazon Web Service bill.

The UK Financial Conduct Authority has issued final guidance requiring crypto firms to reassess their permissions before applications open on Sep. 30 for a regulatory regime taking effect in October 2027.

FCA guidance defines which crypto firms need approval

The Financial Conduct Authority said on Sep. 16 that its final perimeter guidance will help companies decide whether their products and services require authorization under the incoming framework.

Activities within the guidance include issuing qualifying stablecoins, running crypto trading platforms, dealing in digital assets and arranging transactions. Safeguarding cryptoassets and arranging staking services may also require FCA approval, depending on how a company operates.

Rather than relying on a firm’s description of its business, the regulator’s guidance examines the functions it performs. A company may therefore need to assess each service separately when identifying the permissions required for its business model.

Existing FCA registrations will not automatically become authorizations under the new rules. Firms already holding other regulatory permissions may need to request a variation of permission if they plan to conduct one or more regulated crypto activities.

Companies registered under the UK’s anti-money laundering rules must also complete the new authorization process. The existing registration system has a narrower purpose and does not provide the permissions that will be required once the new framework takes effect.

“Getting ready for regulation starts with understanding how the regime applies to your business,” said David Geale, the FCA’s executive director of consumers, payments and competition.

“This guidance gives firms the clarity they’ve asked for so they can prepare with confidence.”

According to the regulator, pre-application meetings and webinars will be available to help companies understand the FCA Handbook, authorization process and prudential requirements.

UK crypto firms face two key application dates

Applications will open on Sep. 30, giving firms more than a year to prepare before the regime begins on Oct. 25, 2027. However, companies seeking access to transitional arrangements face an earlier deadline of Feb. 28, 2027.

Under the FCA’s timetable, the transition mechanism will apply to eligible firms that submit applications by the February deadline. Companies waiting beyond that point may not qualify for the same arrangements when the new rules begin.

The regulator finalized much of its rule package in June after several rounds of industry consultation. Parliament had already approved the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2026 in February, bringing additional digital asset services inside the FCA’s jurisdiction.

Covering more than market entry, the completed package includes rules for stablecoin reserves and redemptions, crypto custody, operational resilience, consumer treatment and capital requirements. Separate provisions address token admissions and misconduct on trading platforms.

Stablecoin issuers, for example, will need to follow requirements for backing assets, asset protection, disclosures and redemption. Custodians will face rules governing the safekeeping of client cryptoassets, while trading platforms and intermediaries will have obligations tied to their specific services.

The FCA said the government has introduced limited exclusions and clarifications for certain technical service providers. Most crypto businesses are not affected by the changes and can use the current guidance to prepare their applications.

During October, the regulator plans to consult on targeted updates involving qualifying UK stablecoins, proprietary trading, market making and some technology providers. The review will also consider decentralized protocols, custody arrangements involving central securities depositories and financial promotion rules.

Overseas firms may fall inside the UK crypto perimeter

Companies based outside Britain will need to review the framework if they provide regulated services to customers in the country or operate within the UK market.

The FCA’s June policy package identifies overseas businesses serving UK consumers among the firms affected by the regime. American exchanges, custodians, stablecoin businesses and staking providers could therefore need UK authorization even when their main corporate operations remain in the United States.

For U.S. companies, the UK process creates a separate compliance assessment from domestic registration and licensing requirements. Authorization from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission or a state regulator does not replace FCA approval for regulated activity in Britain.

The two countries are also moving through different legislative processes. In the United States, the failure of a Senate procedural vote on the CLARITY Act has left federal agencies responsible for applying existing rules while lawmakers decide whether to revive the market structure bill. As previously covered by crypto.news, market experts said the stalled legislation leaves questions about the treatment of tokens, exchanges and decentralized finance unresolved.

Britain’s framework, in contrast, has a fixed start date and a defined application window. International businesses serving both markets will still need to map their products against each country’s rules because permission in one jurisdiction does not provide automatic access to the other.

UK digital asset policy extends past authorization

Parliament’s regulatory work has continued alongside the FCA’s implementation schedule. In September, the House of Lords voted 194–138 for an amendment requiring the Treasury to prepare a national digital asset strategy within 12 months of the Financial Services and Markets Bill becoming law.

The proposed strategy would cover cryptoassets, stablecoins, tokenized securities and digital financial infrastructure. As detailed in the House of Lords vote, the amendment would place a formal deadline on the Treasury’s policy work if it remains in the final legislation.

Regulators are separately assessing how tokenized assets should fit within existing financial rules. In September, the FCA sought industry feedback on whether certain tokenized gold products should receive exemptions from rules governing collective investment schemes and alternative investment funds.

The tokenized gold review includes work with the Treasury and Bank of England on the possible use of digital bullion in wholesale markets. No exemption has been approved, while the Bank of England is considering whether eligible tokenized assets, including stablecoins, could serve as collateral under its Sterling Monetary Framework.

The FCA and Bank of England also plan to publish a roadmap for tokenization in wholesale financial markets, covering areas such as securities, collateral, clearing and settlement infrastructure.