Crypto
A Solana oracle’s support ends today. Who still relies on its prices?
Switchboard’s September 25 support deadline has turned a six-day migration warning into a test of Solana’s price feeds. Current public documentation shows where its data remains part of an application’s design, but those pages cannot prove that a live market is still using the feed. Jito and marginfi provide two sharply different views of the exposure.
Summary
- Switchboard said technical support would end on September 25, 2026, after its September 19 wind-down announcement.
- Jito’s Tip Router documentation still names Switchboard as a pricing source for vault weights, although the overview is 9 months old.
- Marginfi’s September upgrade describes 9 new oracle setups that do not depend on Switchboard.
- A stale price feed can affect collateral checks, while Jito documents a separate fallback for reward-weight pricing.
- No live protocol-wide count of unmigrated Switchboard feeds was verified for the September 25 deadline.
Switchboard has reached its stated September 25 end of technical support, leaving Solana applications to verify the price sources configured in their live programs.
The oracle project’s September 19 statement, as reproduced in coverage of the announcement, said its core development contributor Switchboard Technology Labs would wind down and all implementations were deprecated immediately. The team urged integrators to migrate to other providers, naming Pyth and RedStone. September 25 was described as the last day for existing support. A company ending support is a real operational milestone. It does not, by itself, prove that every onchain feed stopped updating at midnight or that every application once associated with Switchboard remained dependent on it.
Switchboard’s own documentation has named Kamino, Jito, marginfi and Drift as users. Those are historical integration claims from a provider that was selling an oracle service, not a real-time inventory of active feeds on September 25. Checking each project’s current documentation reveals a more complicated picture. Jito’s Tip Router pages still describe Switchboard in their pricing flow; marginfi’s September technical upgrade adds paths designed to avoid that dependency. One document can be stale while another anticipates a migration. Neither substitutes for an inspection of live account configuration.
The earlier Switchboard funding round was $7.5 million in May 2024. The amount is useful background on the venture’s history, but it gives no measure of today’s protocol exposure. The relevant count is the number and value of live markets whose risk calculations still take data from a feed that cannot be reliably updated, and that count cannot be inferred from a customer logo.
A listed integration is not an active feed
Switchboard’s public introduction describes on-demand feeds: applications create or call the data they need, and a price is made available through Solana accounts. Documentation can identify where a protocol knows how to read a Switchboard feed. It may not identify which option a particular market currently selects. A software development kit may support an oracle type long after the last bank switches away from it. Conversely, a website may change while a live reserve retains its older oracle account.
Three levels of evidence need to be kept apart. First is a marketing or integration page, which shows a relationship existed. Second is a program’s supported configuration, visible in technical documentation or code. Third is the live configuration and recent update history of the actual market. Only the third can support a claim that a named market still relied on Switchboard at a given time. Even then, a backup source may be configured, so the impact of a stopped primary feed must be checked against the relevant fallback and freshness rule.
Consider marginfi’s protocol documentation. Its oracle table retains SwitchboardPull and venue variants among available setups. It says a caller must crank a Switchboard pull feed just before use. The same table lists Pyth push feeds and Scope accounts as other setups. A reader could mistake the continued Switchboard row for proof that every marginfi bank still uses it. The table describes supported types, not a complete list of which bank uses which feed today.
Marginfi’s separate Program 0.1.11 note is more current and more specific. It instructed developers to upgrade the SDK to at least version 2.8.0 before September 4, saying banks would begin moving to new oracle setups from that date. The release added nine variants that do not depend on Switchboard, including Kamino Scope feeds and exchange-rate based pricing for certain liquid staking and principal tokens. The note does not say every bank had migrated by September 25. It does show that a project publicly documented a route away from the threatened dependency before the shutdown announcement.
The migration carries a surprising second failure mode. Marginfi says older SDKs cannot decode a bank configured with one of the new oracle enum values. A single bank with an unsupported value can prevent Project0Client.initialize and bank reads, not merely an action involving that bank. In other words, changing an oracle can fix one infrastructure dependency while breaking an integrator that has not updated its software. Marginfi’s document tells integrators how to avoid the SDK problem; it is not evidence that any particular user suffered it.
Project 0 has described unified margin across Solana venues, including Kamino and Drift. Cross-protocol interfaces create another layer at which an oracle migration must be read correctly. The note about older SDK versions is concrete evidence of an integration hazard, without proving a failure in Project 0 or any other named app. A responsible audit would check software versions and live lending-bank configurations before claiming an outage.
Jito’s Tip Router still documents Switchboard
Jito Foundation’s Tip Router overview says Switchboard determines the relative weight of assets such as JitoSOL and JTO held in vaults linked to the Tip Router. The overview identifies an onchain Tip Router program, a node-operator client and a permissionless cranker. Its pricing documentation names Switchboard as the current oracle feed and describes backup weights when feeds are unavailable.
The documents place Switchboard in a specific job: pricing vault assets for weight calculations in a tip distribution and restaking system. They do not say that an unavailable Switchboard feed would automatically liquidate a Solana lending position. Jito’s pricing page describes a fallback mechanism, which weakens the simplistic claim that a support sunset necessarily makes all Tip Router operations stop. The exact fallback values, activation conditions and current live oracle accounts still need a current program-state check.
The Tip Router overview showed a last-updated marker of nine months ago when checked on September 25. That age changes how it can be used. It establishes a documented design and identifies where to ask a technical question. It cannot establish that the present program has the same feed configuration. Jito may have updated onchain accounts without revising the page, or it may still use Switchboard with a fallback. Without a recent transaction inspection or a current statement from Jito, a named live dependency remains unverified.
Jito’s public GitHub release notes for Tip Router refer to retrying Switchboard oracle gateways in keeper operations. A codebase containing such logic likewise demonstrates technical integration, not necessarily a dependency of every vault at the time of publication. Code can preserve a compatibility path for months. The live question is whether recent price update transactions target a Switchboard account used by a vault still carrying value, and whether that account advances after the support deadline.
The distinction is often lost when all oracle users are placed in a single list. Jito’s described calculation affects relative asset weights in a distribution system. A lending market’s described calculation determines collateral value and borrower health. Both consume price data, but their failure paths differ. An audit that counts logos would assign the same severity to fundamentally different uses.
Kamino’s Scope is an aggregator, not a provider label
Kamino Finance’s public Scope repository describes an onchain aggregator that copies values from multiple oracle accounts into one price feed and validates updates under preset rules. Its README says a feed supports up to 512 prices and that the association between an index and a token pair is not wholly stored onchain. A downstream program may point to Scope while Scope itself relies on other feeds for the selected asset. Seeing Scope in a bank configuration is thus a starting point for tracing the actual data source, not the end.
The September marginfi note lists Scope as an option that does not depend on Switchboard for the new setup it describes. That does not imply every deployment of Scope on every date excludes every Switchboard source. An aggregator can change its underlying inputs. A complete dependency check needs both the consumer’s selected Scope account and the source mapping used to populate its entry. Kamino’s repository supplies the architecture, not a timestamped inventory of current mainnet sources for every application.
Kamino has continued bringing institutions into its lending ecosystem. Galaxy opened two stablecoin vaults on the platform in September. The existence of new vaults shows why naming a whole protocol as exposed without checking its individual assets would be unsound. A USDC vault, a liquid staking token reserve and a tokenized equity market can use different oracle paths. We have not verified that Galaxy’s vaults use Switchboard, so they are not included in a count of affected positions.
Similarly, the older list of Kamino, Jito, marginfi and Drift in Switchboard’s introductory material does not tell us the distribution of exposure among them. A project may use an oracle only for one market, use it as a fallback, or retain code after switching live feeds. The only defensible unit of analysis is a specific market or vault and its configured feed at a specified time. Without that unit, claims about funds at risk are marketing arithmetic run backward.
A stale feed has more than one possible effect
The technical consequence of a feed falling behind depends on the consuming protocol. A lending program generally needs a price to determine collateral value and borrowing capacity. If it rejects an old value, an action may fail or a market may pause under its rules. If it accepts stale data, a borrower might transact against a price that no longer matches the market. A fallback source may keep the market operating but introduce a new update rhythm or confidence rule. The protocol’s documentation and onchain configuration decide which path applies.
Marginfi explicitly says Switchboard pull feeds need to be cranked before use. An integrator must therefore supply a fresh update as part of its transaction path. Pyth push feeds, by contrast, are described as being kept fresh through Pyth’s infrastructure. Scope uses an aggregated account value selected by a configured entry index. Moving between these types changes the accounts a transaction needs and the code that checks them. The September SDK warning is one visible example of those changes reaching application software.
For Jito Tip Router, the public docs describe backup weights for unavailable feeds. Whether those backups preserve accurate reward allocation through a sustained outage is a question for live configuration and Jito’s operators, not something a documentation sentence resolves. If a feed keeps updating through independent node operators after the company stops support, no fallback may be triggered immediately. If updates cease but the backup is active, operations may continue with a different pricing method. These are conditional paths, not a prediction of the system’s present state.
An unrelated oracle incident led to liquidations on Vesu earlier in September. It illustrates that incorrect pricing can have economic effects, but it is not evidence of an incident at Switchboard, Jito or marginfi. A shutdown notice should not be turned into a liquidation claim by analogy. The sign of an actual event would be stale account timestamps, failed transactions, a protocol pause or identified losses, none of which has been shown here for the September 25 deadline.
Solana’s move to 250 millisecond slots changed the pace at which blocks are produced, but it did not guarantee that an external price source updates. Faster slots can carry a new price sooner when one exists. They cannot manufacture a price when the node supplying it stops. A protocol’s freshness test may be measured by slot, time or another rule, so a change in the network clock may alter how developers interpret old feed configurations.
Who bears the migration work?
The oracle operator publishes or coordinates data, but the consuming protocol chooses the account its program reads and the limits it places on that price. A lending protocol can require governance or an administrator to change oracle addresses for its markets. Its front end and third-party integrators then have to construct transactions with the right additional accounts. Users may only notice a rejected borrow or a paused market, long after the operator and protocol have made their technical decisions.
An operator ending support does not necessarily have the power to rewrite a customer’s program configuration. The Switchboard notice urged users to migrate because integration owners must act. Projects should be assessed by the addresses and account updates they control. If an application already moved to Pyth before September 19, the later support deadline has no direct effect on that market. If it still selects a Switchboard feed and has no working backup, the feed’s behavior after September 25 is the concrete issue.
The strongest opposing reading of the shutdown alarm follows from marginfi’s own September note and Jito’s documented backup. Applications can design redundancy or move ahead of a vendor exit; the code and documents show mechanisms for doing so. Switchboard’s on-demand model can leave some feed infrastructure running independently even if the core contributor has stopped support. The notice did not publish a verified schedule at which every account would halt, and we found no primary evidence establishing such a universal cutoff.
There is a different kind of continuity question for a protocol that made its own fallback. A backup price can prevent a total stop while pricing an asset less frequently or with a different source set. For a reward distribution process, a temporary backup weight may keep epoch accounting moving, although the allocation may then rely on the backup’s assumptions. For a lending market, the fallback could change the price used in a health check. These are not claims about current Jito or marginfi settings. They show what a maintainer must disclose before users can judge whether a migration is complete in operational terms, not merely whether transactions still execute.
A provider wind-down can have delayed effects as well. Code written to request on-demand prices may succeed while an independent gateway answers, then fail when that gateway is retired or its operators stop updating a specific asset. An observer needs several post-deadline timestamps, not a single successful transaction, to infer continued service. The same discipline applies to a failed transaction: one user’s error may arise from a stale SDK or insufficient account input instead of an unavailable oracle. Marginfi’s migration document supplies an explicit example of a software decoding failure that could otherwise be mislabeled as an oracle outage.
There is a limit to that reassurance. A fallback described nine months earlier needs validation against current state, and a migration option described in September is not proof every bank took it. The two documents supply credible reasons not to assume catastrophe, while leaving a measurable gap. The fair conclusion is narrower than both the promotional and alarmist versions: public documents identify candidate dependencies and escape routes; a current market-by-market configuration audit is needed to establish any remaining exposure.
The live inventory is still the missing document
The original reporting here compares Switchboard’s list of four prominent integrators with current primary documents from Jito, marginfi and Kamino. It yields two verified documentary findings. Jito’s older Tip Router documentation names Switchboard for vault pricing and a fallback for unavailable feeds. Marginfi’s September 0.1.11 note describes nine new setups independent of Switchboard and warns of a separate SDK break if integrators do not upgrade. Kamino’s Scope repository explains why an aggregator label alone cannot identify every upstream data source.
The work does not produce a count of live unmigrated feeds, user funds exposed or an outage at any named protocol. The available public pages do not contain a synchronized September 25 snapshot of all oracle accounts, latest successful updates, fallback settings and amounts supported by each market. Claiming a specific dollar total from protocol TVL would be indefensible, because the whole protocol’s assets do not necessarily share the same oracle. The precise headline question remains open at the live-account level.
A proper count would use the market as the row, not the protocol. For each active lending bank, derivative market or reward vault, the auditor would record its program address, selected oracle type, oracle account, backup source if any, latest successful price update, maximum permitted age and the value of positions actually dependent on that particular price. Duplicate markets that share one oracle account should not be counted as distinct feeds; one market using two independent oracles should not be counted as wholly dependent on either without reading its fallback logic. The timestamp of the market configuration matters because an administrator could change a feed after the observation.
This method explains why even a true statement such as a protocol supported 550 feeds in the past is insufficient for the present question. A feed can exist without an active borrower, can have a price update without a consuming market, or can be referenced only in dormant code. A count of feed accounts measures infrastructure. A count of configured markets measures dependency. A count of positions and collateral actually touching those markets measures economic exposure. None is interchangeable with total assets deposited in all products run by a project.
There is a further verification step when a source is an aggregator. The consumer may identify a Scope account and entry index, while the Scope mapping points onward to one or more providers. An update in the Scope account after September 25 proves an aggregator produced a value, but it does not by itself prove Switchboard continued to supply the underlying price. The investigator needs the selected entry and source configuration for that update. Kamino’s repository notes that token-pair labels are not entirely stored onchain, so external configuration or maintainer documentation may be needed to map an index to its asset. Where that mapping is unavailable, the result should be recorded as unknown, not silently attributed to Pyth or Switchboard.
What to watch
- Market oracle addresses: Compare each active bank or vault’s configured feed with the documented Switchboard accounts.
- Price update timestamps: Check whether an identified feed continues publishing fresh values after September 25.
- Fallback configuration: Look for the source and freshness limit used if a primary feed falls behind.
- Recent program transactions: Check whether borrowing, settlement or tip distribution still completes for the affected market.
- Dated maintainer updates: Look for a named migration, market pause or remaining dependency, supported by an account or program address.
Record the observation time for each check; a screenshot without a block or timestamp can quickly become stale.
Marginfi’s upgrade note states that a bank using a new oracle enum value can make an older SDK fail to initialize its client, even if a user does not interact with that particular bank. The instruction to use SDK version 2.8.0 or later was published ahead of September 4’s migration start, three weeks before Switchboard’s support deadline.
FAQ
When did Switchboard say support would end?
The shutdown announcement was made on September 19, 2026, and identified September 25 as the end of existing technical support. The notice deprecated implementations immediately.
Did all Switchboard oracle feeds stop on September 25?
The support deadline alone does not establish that every onchain account stopped updating. Current transaction and feed timestamps are needed to make that claim.
Does Jito still use Switchboard?
Jito’s Tip Router documentation still names Switchboard in vault pricing, but its overview is marked as last updated nine months earlier. The pages do not prove the live September 25 configuration.
Did marginfi migrate off Switchboard?
Marginfi’s September upgrade documents nine new oracle setups that do not depend on Switchboard and says banks began moving from September 4. It does not state that every bank completed a migration.
Why can an oracle migration break an SDK?
Marginfi says older SDKs do not recognize the enum values used by its nine new setups. A bank configured with one can make an old client’s initialization fail; version 2.8.0 or later supports the variants.
Is Kamino Scope independent of every external oracle?
Scope aggregates values from other oracle accounts. Its presence in a consumer’s configuration does not identify every upstream source without examining the specific entry mapping.
How can users check whether a market is affected?
The market’s configured oracle account, latest update and fallback settings provide a stronger answer than a historical provider list. Protocol announcements can confirm whether a specific market has migrated.
Have losses been verified from this shutdown?
No losses at a named protocol were verified for this feature. An earlier incident at another protocol cannot prove one occurred here. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of September 25, 2026.
Crypto
Goldman Sachs brings $100 billion Treasury fund into crypto’s institutional plumbing
“There’s a convergence now that you’re seeing between traditional market participants and digital asset market participants as well,” Lynq CEO Jerald David said in an interview with CoinDesk TV.
For firms using Lynq, FTIXX gives them somewhere to put cash between trades rather than leaving it sitting around. They can earn yield on the money and pull it out when they need it again.
That was a product Lynq’s clients had been asking for, David said. The network works with firms including B2C2, Wintermute, Galaxy ·, FalconX, Crypto.com and Fireblocks, whose businesses can require moving large amounts of money between trades. They wanted another option for putting that cash to work in the meantime.
“We needed to demonstrate that there was client demand,” David said. “Our clients were looking for a treasury asset on the platform that may have had a different yield profile than the other instrument that’s on there right now.”
Getting FTIXX onto the network required some work. Lynq had to modify its technology, restrict access to U.S. clients and integrate with Mosaic, he said. Customers also need a relationship with tZERO Securities and must meet the required onboarding and eligibility checks.
Lynq itself runs on a private, permissioned Avalanche (AVAX) Layer 1 blockchain. Its network has more than 30 institutional digital-asset firms onboarded and more than $89 million in assets, according to the company.
Crypto
Crypto’s Widening Net: From Fed Bets to Blackjack Tables, Digital Assets Keep Blurring Old Boundaries
If there is one throughline in this week’s crop of crypto headlines, it is that the industry has stopped pretending it is only about buying and holding coins. Across a handful of stories making the rounds, digital assets are shown pushing into territory once reserved for central bankers, casino floors, brokerage accounts and pre-IPO investors alike — a reminder that “crypto news” increasingly means finance news, gambling news and macro news rolled into one.
Take the growing chatter around prediction markets and Federal Reserve policy. Traders have been flocking to on-chain betting platforms to price the odds of late-2026 rate decisions, effectively turning monetary policy into a tradable asset class alongside Bitcoin and Ethereum. That such markets exist at all is notable: a decade ago, speculating on FOMC outcomes required options contracts or futures desks.
Now it can happen peer-to-peer on a blockchain, with odds shifting in real time as economic data lands. The rise of these markets suggests crypto infrastructure is becoming a genuine alternative venue for hedging and speculating on the traditional economy, not just a parallel casino for digital tokens.
Speaking of casinos, the sector itself continues to evolve in ways that mirror shifts in consumer taste rather than technology alone. Reports on crypto gambling lobbies note that live-dealer blackjack tables are increasingly outnumbering roulette wheels—a seemingly small detail that says more about what crypto-native gamblers want.
Live blackjack offers a sense of skill and control that pure-chance games like roulette can’t match, and operators appear to be responding by stacking their lobbies accordingly. It’s a small but telling sign that crypto casinos are maturing into product-driven businesses competing on experience, not just novelty.
Meanwhile, the boundary between crypto trading and traditional equities markets keeps eroding. New developments around Aave’s lending protocol reportedly let users borrow stablecoins against tokenized versions of tech stocks issued through Coinbase and built on the Base network.
If that model gains traction, it would mark a significant step in bringing real-world assets fully into DeFi’s collateral system — letting someone hold a tokenized slice of a Nasdaq darling and borrow against it the same way they might borrow against ETH or Bitcoin today. It’s the kind of integration that regulators, banks and crypto-native builders have all been circling for years, and its practical rollout matters more than the concept alone.
On the trading-platform side, perpetual futures exchanges continue to expand what counts as a “market.” One report describes a platform offering more than 120 perpetual contracts spanning everything from Bitcoin to pre-IPO robotics companies, letting traders apply leverage to assets that, in many cases, aren’t even publicly listed yet.
This kind of expansion into speculative, illiquid corners of the private market — wrapped in crypto’s leverage-friendly perpetual format — raises real questions about price discovery and risk, even as it satisfies demand from traders hungry for exposure beyond the usual crypto majors.
Finally, there’s the steady drumbeat of token listings that keeps the broader ecosystem churning. A gambling-focused token tied to the Dexsport platform recently landed on the MEXC exchange, a move that typically brings a token more liquidity and visibility, if not necessarily more fundamental value. Listings like these remain a bread-and-butter event in crypto markets — routine, but still closely watched by holders hoping for a price bump and a wider trading audience.
Individually, none of these developments is likely to reshape the industry overnight. But together they sketch a familiar pattern in crypto’s ongoing evolution: infrastructure built for speculative tokens is steadily being repurposed for macro bets, tokenized equities, private-company exposure and gambling products alike.
The technology is proving flexible enough to wrap around almost anything with a price — which is exactly why regulators, investors and casual observers alike keep struggling to say where “crypto” ends and the rest of finance begins.
Crypto
Perplexity AI Predicts a Big Move for BTC in 2026 Even With Recent Dip
Perplexity AI predicts that if a full-blown bull market returns in Q4, Bitcoin could reach $180,000 before January 1, 2027. The bullish range is estimated at $140,000 to $180,000, with a potential late-cycle surge that could push Bitcoin beyond $200,000.
Currently priced around $83,000, this would represent a gain of about 115% to reach $180,000. What’s noteworthy is that Bitcoin has already corrected significantly from its previous cycle high of about $126,200 on October 6, 2025, followed by a sharp decline during 2026.
Bitcoin has a history of producing substantial gains during strong market cycles. According to historical annual data, BTC gained approximately 154% in 2023 and 110% in 2024. If the current predictions hold true, we may see a similar increase on the horizon.

Perplexity AI Predicts Bitcoin to $180,000 if Bullish Catalysts Align: Does the Technical Analysis Back it Up?
Bitcoin recently broke out of a pattern of lower highs that had developed since May, reclaiming several key moving averages. According to Reuters’ technical analysis, $81,781 is considered important support, while $86,500 is a significant resistance level. Above that, the next technical targets are around $90,000 and $97,867.
CryptoQuant has noted a similar trend, calling $81,700 a key level because it aligns with Bitcoin’s 365-day moving average. Resistance levels above this are near $86,600 and $88,700.
Bitcoin’s first major test is surpassing the $85,000 level, followed by the $86,000 to $88,000 range. Bitcoin has pushed through this area, which matters because a sustained breakout would remove one of the largest technical obstacles between its current price and the $100,000 level.
The next major milestone is approximately $98,000. Beyond that, the market will be approaching the all-time high of $126,200, where it gets particularly interesting.
Once Bitcoin decisively breaks beyond $126,000, it will enter a phase of genuine price discovery. Historical resistance above that level is very limited. At that point, psychological targets such as $130,000, $140,000, and $150,000 could attract momentum traders and institutional investors.
Earn $50 and Enter $300K Prize Draw on EdgeX
Bitcoin Hyper Targets Early Mover Upside as Bitcoin Drops Dangerously Close to $80,000
A -2.5% daily drop is not too much to worry about for whales and those already heavily positioned at a much lower price. However, for those who bought over $80,000, things could be getting uncomfortable, which is why presale opportunities prove so popular.
Bitcoin Hyper ($HYPER) is positioning itself as the first Bitcoin Layer 2 with full SVM integration. It boasts smart contract execution built for speed that outpaces Solana itself, while settling back to Bitcoin’s base-layer security.
As of today, the presale has raised more than $33.1M at a current token price of just $0.0136864, with staking rewards live at launch at a huge 35% APY.
The pitch: solve Bitcoin’s slow transactions, high fees, and lack of programmability without abandoning what makes BTC trusted in the first place. A Decentralized Canonical Bridge handles BTC transfers natively.
Gain Access to New Bitcoin Layer 2 Early Here
Discover: The Best Token Presales
The post Perplexity AI Predicts a Big Move for BTC in 2026 Even With Recent Dip appeared first on Cryptonews.
Crypto
XRP Price Slides 2.9% as $1.50 Reclaim Becomes Critical
XRP lost its $1.50 price pivot today, sliding to $1.47 after a daily decline of about 3%. The break forces a binary question onto the chart: does the selling pressure showing up in spot-market volume resolve into a quick reclaim, or does it open the door to a deeper slide toward $1.40-$1.42?
The 200-day EMA is near $1.37, the level that would flip the medium-term structure from bullish to neutral. The token has been printing lower highs since a local peak near $1.63 on September 23, and a second attempt to clear $1.60 on September 25 failed as well. Since then, the decline has been slow and orderly: $1.55, then $1.52, then $1.50, and now $1.47.
There was no single dramatic session driving the move. Instead, the pattern reads as buyers simply not showing up, with every small bounce getting sold rather than extended. After the sharp rally in early September, that kind of cooling was overdue, but the open question is whether $1.50 was ever real support or just a round number the market is now testing.
Earn $50 and Enter $300K Prize Draw on EdgeX
ETF Accumulation Narrative or Technical Pullback?
The chart itself frames this as a cooling-off period following the rally that carried the XRP price up nearly 50% from its August low near $1.00. RSI sits at a neutral 54, with no overbought or oversold readings to lean on. Price levels, not oscillators, are setting the tone for this week.

Separately, market data has pointed to sustained spot XRP ETF inflows running into the hundreds of millions of dollars over recent weeks, a trend some trackers frame as ongoing institutional accumulation beneath the price action. That flow data is useful context, but it is not confirmed as the driver of Monday’s drop, as the pullback below $1.50 traces cleanly to failed resistance tests and fading bid support.
The medium-term structure remains intact for now. XRP sits above its 200-day EMA at $1.37, which is curling upward for the first time since spring. This is a sign the longer trend has not broken, even as the shorter-term chart bleeds lower. A descending trendline from the late-August spike to $1.70 was cleared in mid-September, and that breakout is what fueled the run to $1.67 in the first place.
A second descending trendline, drawn from the September 23 high, is now the line bulls need to clear in October; left alone, it points toward $1.20 by mid-November. The levels on both sides of the current price are well defined.
Trade XRP on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop
Reclaim $1.50 or Risk $1.37: XRP Price Next Move
The first job for bulls is straightforward: close a daily candle back above $1.50. Do that, and Monday’s drop reads as a fakeout rather than a breakdown, with $1.55 as the next confirmation level and $1.60-$1.63 as the target that would put the September 23 high back in play.
Fail to reclaim $1.50 in the next day or two, and $1.40-$1.42 becomes the level to watch, with the 200-day EMA at $1.37 as the line that actually matters for the medium-term outlook. A close below it would shift Ripple’s native asset from a bullish structure to a neutral one, opening room toward $1.30 and, in a broader crypto market sell-off scenario, $1.20.
For this week, the range is $1.37 to $1.60, with $1.50 sitting as the pivot in between. On technical analysis grounds, the base case is a dip toward $1.40-$1.42 that gets bought, followed by another attempt at reclaiming $1.50. A pattern consistent with pullbacks inside an uptrend rather than the start of a new downtrend.
The $1.80-$2.00 zone remains the valid medium-term target as long as $1.37 holds; lose it, and that target moves out of reach for the immediate term.
Discover: The Best Token Presales
The post XRP Price Slides 2.9% as $1.50 Reclaim Becomes Critical appeared first on Cryptonews.
Crypto
Crypto’s New Playground: Casinos, Fed Bets, and Tokenized Stocks Blur the Line Between Trading and Gambling
The crypto industry has always had a talent for reinventing itself, but the latest wave of product launches suggests the industry is heading somewhere new: a place where trading, betting, and borrowing are becoming almost indistinguishable from one another. A cluster of recent developments — spanning live-dealer casino games, a new token listing tied to decentralized betting platforms, prediction markets built around Federal Reserve policy, sprawling perpetual futures exchanges, and DeFi protocols that let users borrow against tokenized shares of tech companies — paints a picture of an ecosystem racing to fuse speculation of every stripe into a single, crypto-native experience.
Take the world of crypto casinos, where live blackjack tables have reportedly begun to crowd out roulette wheels in lobby rankings. The dynamics driving that shift echo something familiar from traditional gambling: player preference for games that reward skill and pacing over pure chance. Blackjack lets players make decisions — when to hit, stand, split, or double down — giving a sense of agency that a spinning roulette wheel simply can’t replicate. In an industry built around instant, low-friction transactions using digital assets, that appeal seems to translate directly into engagement, with live-streamed dealers adding a layer of social, real-time theater that slot-style games lack.
That same appetite for interactive, decision-driven products is showing up elsewhere. Dexsport, a decentralized betting and casino platform, recently saw its native token, DESU, listed on the exchange MEXC — a milestone that matters less for the listing itself than for what it signals about the sector’s maturation. Token listings on major exchanges typically bring liquidity, visibility, and a degree of legitimacy that smaller platforms struggle to achieve on their own. For everyday users, a listing like this often translates into easier on-ramps, more trading pairs, and a stronger case that the underlying platform is being taken seriously by the broader market rather than treated as a niche experiment.
Meanwhile, speculation is moving well beyond games of chance and into the realm of macroeconomic policy. Prediction markets tracking the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decisions have become one of the more closely watched corners of crypto-adjacent finance heading into the back half of 2026. Traders on these platforms are effectively placing wagers on central bank behavior, turning monetary policy announcements into tradeable events. The appeal is straightforward: instead of relying solely on bond markets or futures tied to traditional finance, participants can now stake positions directly on whether the Fed will hold, cut, or raise rates, often with faster settlement and more granular contract structures than legacy markets offer. It’s a sign that prediction markets, once dismissed as a curiosity, are increasingly viewed as a legitimate barometer of trader sentiment on issues far removed from crypto prices themselves.
The appetite for exotic exposure is also evident in the perpetual futures space, where platforms like ApeX Omni have expanded their offerings well past the usual roster of Bitcoin and Ethereum contracts. With well over 120 perpetual markets now available, traders can reportedly take leveraged positions not just on major cryptocurrencies but on themes as far-flung as pre-IPO robotics companies. This kind of expansion reflects a broader trend of crypto exchanges positioning themselves as all-purpose speculation venues, offering leverage on virtually any asset class that generates enough trader interest — blurring the boundary between crypto trading and speculative bets on private, pre-public companies that would otherwise be inaccessible to retail investors.
Perhaps the clearest example of crypto finance colliding with traditional markets comes from Aave’s newest iteration. The protocol’s fourth version reportedly allows users to borrow USDC stablecoins against tokenized versions of Coinbase-linked tech stocks on the Base network. In practice, that means holders of tokenized equity exposure can unlock liquidity without selling their underlying positions — a mechanic long familiar to DeFi users who collateralize crypto assets, now extended to tokenized real-world securities. It’s a small but telling step toward a future where the wall between “crypto” and “traditional markets” continues to erode, with stocks, bonds, and other conventional assets increasingly represented on-chain and woven into the same lending and borrowing infrastructure that powers decentralized finance.
Taken together, these developments underscore a consistent theme: crypto platforms are no longer content to simply trade digital coins. They are building out entire ecosystems of speculation — casino games, prediction markets, leveraged derivatives, and collateralized lending — all designed to keep users engaged, liquid, and constantly exposed to new forms of risk and reward. Whether this convergence produces a more mature, diversified financial ecosystem or simply amplifies the volatility and risk-taking crypto is already known for remains an open question. What’s clear is that the industry’s appetite for expansion shows no signs of slowing down.
Crypto
When AI Met Crypto: A Season of Super-PACs, Prompt-Injection Heists and Vape-Pen Blockchains

If there was a single theme running through the crypto world’s headlines this spring and summer, it was this: the industry that once promised to reinvent money has increasingly fused itself to the industry promising to reinvent everything else — artificial intelligence.
The result, according to a string of reports and commentary tracked by researcher-journalist Molly White and blogger David Gerard, is a landscape where political money, security failures and marketing absurdity are all converging in ways that ought to worry anyone paying attention.
Start with the money in politics. In a recent interview, White — who has spent years cataloguing where crypto industry cash flows in Washington — turned her attention to a new wrinkle: artificial intelligence companies adopting the same political playbook that crypto firms pioneered.
According to the discussion, OpenAI and Anthropic are now effectively running competing pro-AI super-PACs, pouring money into races much the way crypto-aligned PACs like Fairshake have done in recent election cycles. White reportedly highlighted a botched intervention in New York’s 12th congressional district as an example of the sums involved and the risk of these efforts backfiring.
The parallel is not incidental. Crypto’s political spending playbook — deploy industry money to shape friendly regulation and punish critics — was built over several election cycles and proved remarkably effective at getting crypto-friendly candidates elected and skeptics sidelined.
Watchers like White argue that AI companies, facing their own looming questions about regulation, safety and liability, are now borrowing that same toolkit almost wholesale. Whether AI’s political spending proves as consequential as crypto’s remains to be seen, but the early signs suggest deep-pocketed AI labs are not content to leave the lobbying playing field to blockchain interests alone.
Money and politics aside, the more immediate crypto news has been considerably more chaotic on the technical side. A case in point: an unofficial crypto wallet built on top of Elon Musk’s Grok AI was reportedly compromised through a combination of an NFT and a prompt injection attack — a technique in which malicious instructions are hidden inside content an AI model processes, tricking it into taking unauthorized actions.
The episode is being cited by critics as a vivid illustration of what happens when experimental AI agents are given direct access to cryptocurrency funds without adequate safeguards. As one commentator put it, the incident underscores a blunt truth: the push toward “agentic commerce,” in which AI systems autonomously manage transactions and wallets on a user’s behalf, currently looks a lot like an open invitation to fraud.
That warning fits a broader pattern. Crypto’s history is littered with hacks and exploits that followed hard on the heels of new technical hype cycles — DeFi protocols, bridges, NFT marketplaces — and the addition of AI agents with wallet access appears to be simply the latest frontier for attackers to probe.
Security researchers have long cautioned that combining large language models, which can be manipulated through carefully crafted inputs, with systems that move real money is a combination that demands far more rigorous testing than the industry has so far shown appetite for.
Then there is the sheer commercial strangeness of the AI-crypto convergence. Among the products making the rounds is “Gudtrip,” described in coverage as an AI agent vape pen built with blockchain technology — a mash-up that manages to combine three separate hype cycles (AI, crypto, and vaping) into a single device.
It’s the kind of product that invites eye-rolls even from people steeped in the industry, and it has become something of a symbol for critics who argue that “blockchain” and “AI agent” are increasingly being slapped onto unrelated consumer goods simply because the buzzwords still move product.
Labor practices are also getting the AI-crypto treatment. Reports have surfaced of AI companies experimenting with paying staff in AI-linked tokens rather than conventional money — an arrangement that echoes crypto’s long history of compensating workers and contractors in volatile, illiquid tokens instead of cash. Critics have been quick to note the obvious problem: a token’s value depends entirely on continued enthusiasm for the company issuing it, leaving employees exposed to exactly the kind of speculative risk that traditional salaries are designed to avoid. The practice, if it spreads, would import one of crypto’s more employee-unfriendly habits directly into the AI industry’s compensation structures.
Not everyone covering this convergence is doing so with a straight face. A satirical piece making the rounds — structured as a twist on the old “two cows” economics joke — skewered the fintech, AI, blockchain and crypto sectors in one go, imagining a “crypto” cow story where two digital cows produce “milk tokens” tradeable for millions but drinkable only by avatars in the metaverse, and a “hedge fund” version featuring robotic cows that befriend real cows just to steal their milk.
Silly as the format is, the satire lands because it captures something real: a sense among observers that these overlapping industries have become adept at generating elaborate financial and technical narratives that produce headlines and valuations long before they produce anything resembling durable value.
Taken together, these threads — political spending mirroring crypto’s playbook, an AI wallet hacked via prompt injection, blockchain-branded vape pens, token-based salaries, and no shortage of pointed satire — paint a picture of an industry moment defined less by a single breakthrough than by rapid, sometimes reckless, cross-pollination.
Crypto spent the better part of a decade building the infrastructure, the political machinery and the marketing instincts for turning speculative technology into cultural and financial weight. Now AI companies appear to be absorbing many of the same instincts, for better or worse, at a pace that leaves regulators, security researchers and workers alike scrambling to keep up.
Editor’s note: Much of the reporting referenced above originates from commentary and short-form blog coverage rather than in-depth investigative reporting, and some details — such as the specific financial scale of AI super-PAC spending or the full technical mechanics of the Grok wallet exploit — were not independently verifiable from the available material. Readers should treat figures and claims here as preliminary pending fuller reporting.
Crypto
Nearly half the stocks in the S&P 500 are at cross purposes with the rest of the market
U.S. oil drilling site.
David McNew | Getty Images
Nearly half of the stocks in the S&P 500 are moving against the index with a negative beta, an unusual divergence that is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
About 45% of S&P 500 stocks have a negative three-month beta, according to a recent note from Goldman Sachs. The data closely aligns with CNBC’s finding that nearly 40% of S&P 500 stocks had a negative three-month beta versus the index, while 17% have a negative one-year beta, based on weekly returns.
Beta measures how a stock moves relative to the rest of the market. A negative beta means an individual stock’s returns moved in the opposite direction of the S&P 500 over the measured period.
The surge in stocks with a negative beta dovetails with other unusual market signals. The S&P rallied 1.5% last Monday. The same day 30 stocks touched a 52-week low while just 7 scored a new high. The last time the S&P 500 gained at least 1% while sitting within 1% of a new 52-week high and new lows outnumbered new highs was in December 1999, right before the very top of the dot-com boom, according to Jason Goepfert, founder of SentimenTrader.
The two indicators show that market indexes can remain at or close to records despite wide divergences among individual stocks.
Widening divide
The yawning gap largely reflects how concentrated the S&P 500 has become, according to Adam Turnquist, chief technical strategist at LPL Financial.
Mega-cap technology companies carry an outsized weight in the benchmark, meaning a strong performance from a small number of stocks can drive the index even when many others are moving the other way.
“It only takes a few of those mega caps names to work, and a lot of the smaller weighted stocks don’t need to work,” Turnquist told CNBC, pointing to unusually low correlations among S&P 500 stocks.
The same dynamic explains why the broader index can look relatively calm even when individual stocks are making large moves, said Bradley Krom, director of investing strategy at WisdomTree.
“Beta is a function of correlation and volatility,” Krom said. When stocks experience large moves at different times and for different reasons, those moves can largely offset one another at the index level.
In July this year, Alliance Bernstein, using one-year trailing returns, found an unprecedented share of U.S. stocks displaying negative beta as AI winners powered market gains.
Semiconductor makers, hardware companies and other AI infrastructure beneficiaries have benefited from enormous capital spending, while companies outside the AI trade have struggled to keep up.
“But a narrow market can also distort the signal investors receive from index returns. When a handful of companies dominate performance, many financially sound businesses may lag or even decline, simply because they aren’t tied directly to the most powerful market narrative,” wrote Kurt Feuerman, chief investment officer of Select U.S. Equity Portfolios at AllianceBernstein.
Negative energy
Energy stocks with negative beta are being driven by different forces.
“Another part of the other story is energy. That’s been pronounced this year: higher oil prices, higher energy stocks and then the rest of the market trades lower,” said Turnquist, seeing energy as an important part of the negative-beta story, alongside more defensive sectors.
Earlier this month, Evercore ISI used a six-month measure to call out 115 S&P 500 stocks with negative beta, a list skewed toward energy, utilities and consumer staples. The investment bank called the energy sector a “synthetic S&P 500 put option” because of the way it has reacted to geopolitical pressure.
If market leadership broadens out, Turnquist believes the number of negative-beta stocks could decline. But he expects dispersion to remain elevated as investors become remain selective toward beneficiaries of AI spending and seek returns there.
Krom at WisdomTree expects the recent extreme readings to eventually revert to the mean. Similar spikes appeared around the 1999-2000 dot-com bubble, he said, when market concentration and large moves in a narrow group of stocks also triggered unusual divergences.
Turnquist pushed back on comparing today with the dot-com era, leading tech companies now are more mature businesses with established revenue and products. Krom is on the same page. He said the individual pieces driving returns don’t have the same historical relationship they’ve had in the past.
“It is not the same market environment now versus 2000,” Krom said. The negative betas seen today boil “down to the amount of market concentration.”
Crypto
Crypto’s Quiet Mainstreaming: From Wall Street Trading Desks to Weeknight Spending Habits
Cryptocurrency no longer lives only in trading app screenshots and speculative headlines. A cluster of recent coverage suggests digital assets have settled into three very different corners of everyday life at once: the boardrooms of family offices moving nine-figure sums, the phones of ordinary Britons paying for a night out, and a growing ecosystem of explainer sites trying to make sense of it all for newcomers. Taken together, they paint a picture of an asset class that has stopped trying to prove itself and started simply getting used.
At the top end of the market, the mechanics of moving serious money in crypto increasingly mirror what has long happened on Wall Street. Selling a large position on the open market is a blunt instrument — dump a $20 million order into a standard exchange and the price can slide five to ten percent against you before the trade even completes, as algorithms and bots react to the visible order book.
High-net-worth investors and family offices have borrowed a page from traditional equities to avoid that problem, leaning on block trades negotiated privately between two parties and reported only after execution, dark pools where institutional orders are matched away from public view, and OTC desks that lock in a price before a trade ever touches the open market.
None of these tools are new in spirit — block trading dates back to the 1960s, and banks such as Credit Suisse pioneered dark-pool venues in the mid-2000s — but their extension into crypto shows how thoroughly digital assets have been absorbed into the plumbing of institutional finance, complete with all its discretion and negotiated pricing.
Further down the market, the story is less about avoiding slippage and more about convenience. A growing share of everyday spenders now treat crypto the way they treat a contactless card — something to tap and forget.
Much of that shift traces back to apps like Revolut, which began as a travel card and has since folded budgeting tools, instant transfers and built-in crypto purchases into a single interface. For users already comfortable buying fractions of Bitcoin or Ethereum on their phone, spending a small slice of a holding online no longer feels like a leap. Recent Pew Research figures cited in industry coverage suggest roughly one in five adults have used cryptocurrency in some form, evidence of just how far the technology has travelled from niche forums into ordinary financial habits. Faster networks and pound- or dollar-pegged stablecoins have also softened the volatility fears that once made spending crypto feel reckless.

That spending habit has, in turn, fed into digital entertainment, where a wave of offshore-licensed sites — often based in Malta, Curaçao or Gibraltar — have built their appeal specifically around crypto and app-based payments such as Revolut, alongside larger game libraries and bigger sign-up bonuses.
These platforms sit outside the UK’s domestic licensing system, which is precisely the draw for some users, including those who have self-excluded through Gamstop. The logic mirrors a broader pattern researchers have tracked in crypto adoption more generally: users start on a single centralised platform for convenience, then gradually spread activity across multiple services and self-custodied wallets as they grow more comfortable, seeking flexibility rather than a single gatekeeper. It’s worth being clear-eyed about what this means in practice — these offshore sites operate under lighter regulatory oversight than UK-licensed operators, and readers weighing them should treat player-protection tools and responsible-gambling warnings as essential reading, not fine print to skip.
Feeding all of this is a parallel boom in explainer content trying to translate crypto’s jargon — DeFi, staking, tokenomics, smart contracts — into plain English. Sites such as RobTheCoins.com have positioned themselves as educational hubs rather than exchanges or wallets, publishing guides on blockchain business models, crypto tax tools and the overlap between gaming and crypto economies.
That distinction matters, because the line between “content that explains crypto” and “a product that handles your money” is not always obvious to a casual reader, and confusing the two is exactly the kind of mistake that has burned newcomers before.
None of this amounts to a single dramatic headline. There is no exchange collapse or regulatory crackdown driving this particular news cycle. Instead, what emerges is a quieter, arguably more consequential trend: crypto is being absorbed into the ordinary architecture of modern finance and leisure, from the trading desks of the ultra-wealthy down to a tap-to-pay night out.
Whether that mainstreaming is entirely healthy is a separate question. Institutional tools like dark pools and OTC desks still lack the transparency of public markets, offshore gambling platforms carry real consumer-protection gaps, and no amount of friendly explainer content changes the fact that crypto remains a volatile, largely unregulated asset in most jurisdictions.
Readers tempted by any part of this ecosystem — whether it’s a block-trading conversation or a crypto-funded casino account — would do well to verify claims independently, check who is actually regulated, and remember that accessibility is not the same thing as same thing as safety.
Crypto
Convicted cybercriminal arrested in connection with ShinyHunters group
A 24-year-old convicted cybercriminal was arrested in the Netherlands on September 16 on suspicion of aiding crypto hacking collective ShinyHunters.
Krebsonsecurity reports that Pepijn van der Stap was detained by Dutch authorities for questioning in relation to ShinyHunters.
Police claim he’ll appear in the Rotterdam District Court on September 29, while local news reports the United States is also involved in his case.
Over three years ago, van der Stap carried out multiple acts of data theft and extortion under the moniker “Umbreon.”
Read more: Crypto hacking group ShinyHunters says it stole data of 5,000 FBI agents
Van der Stap was eventually arrested, convicted, and handed a four-year suspended sentence. He was released in December 2025.
While carrying out his criminal activities, he worked at cybersecurity startup Hadrian and volunteered at the nonprofit Dutch Institute for Vulnerability Disclosure.
He’s currently the offensive security lead at Neo Security, and described himself to Krebsonsecurity as a reformed convict.
ShinyHunters attacked FBI days after van der Stap’s arrest
Just six days after van der Stap’s arrest, ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for hacking and stealing the data of 5,000 FBI agents.
This attack also manipulated the FBI’s job page to display a picture of the Pokémon Umbreon.
Krebsonsecurity reports that the attack represented a shift in ShinyHunters’ usual attacks while the group is under the leadership of a teenager based in Amman, Jordan, who goes by the nickname “Rey.”
Rey reportedly merged the group with fellow hacking groups Scattered Spider and LAPSUS$ to become ScatteredLapsussHunters.
Read more: Crypto hackers target Hinge and Match Group in data leak
Sources close to the ShinyHunters investigation told the publication that Rey had “ongoing beef” with van der Stap, and that Umbreon’s inclusion was possibly an attempt by Rey to shift blame towards van der Stap.
ShinyHunters has also been linked to the hacking of the Netherlands telecommunications provider Odido last February.
Personal data, including bank account and passport numbers, of six million Odido customers were leaked.
Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Crypto
Strategy buys 1,665 BTC and repurchases $152M STRC
Strategy has acquired another 1,665 BTC for approximately $142.7 million while spending $151.7 million to repurchase STRC preferred shares during the week ended Sept. 27.
Summary
- Strategy bought 1,665 BTC for $142.7 million, lifting total Bitcoin holdings to 847,666 coins overall.
- Strategy repurchased 1,534,530 STRC shares for $151.7 million during the September 21 to 27 period.
- MSTR sales generated $246.2 million net proceeds, with no preferred shares issued during the week.
- Strategy held $5.02 billion in USD Reserve and $1.00 billion in deployable USD Cash overall.
- Bitcoin holdings cost $63.95 billion in aggregate, averaging $75,437 per coin including fees and expenses.
Strategy disclosed the transactions in a Sept. 28 Form 8-K, showing that the company paid an average of $85,681 per BTC, including fees and expenses, between Sept. 21 and Sept. 27. The purchase lifted its Bitcoin holdings to 847,666 BTC.
During the same period, Strategy sold 1,469,165 MSTR shares through its at-the-market program, generating $246.2 million in net proceeds. Of that amount, $142.7 million funded the Bitcoin purchases and $103.5 million went toward STRC repurchases.
The company issued no STRF, STRC, STRK or STRD preferred shares through its ATM programs during the week.
Strategy Bitcoin holdings reach 847,666 BTC
Following the latest purchase, Strategy held 847,666 BTC acquired for an aggregate $63.95 billion. Its average acquisition cost stood at $75,437 per BTC, including fees and expenses.
The latest addition follows Strategy’s 950 BTC purchase after a two-week buying pause reported for the previous week. The company spent $75.7 million on that acquisition at an average price of $79,670 per BTC, increasing holdings at the time to 846,000 BTC.
Strategy’s new $85,681 average purchase price for the Sept. 21-27 period was above Bitcoin’s latest market price. CoinGecko shows BTC trading near $83,401 at the latest reading, around 2.7% below Strategy’s average price for the latest purchase.
At that market price, Strategy’s 847,666 BTC position would be worth roughly $70.7 billion. The calculation uses a live market price and therefore differs from the company’s recorded acquisition cost.
STRC repurchases reach another $151.7 million
Alongside the Bitcoin acquisition, Strategy repurchased 1,534,530 shares of its Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Stretch Preferred Stock, or STRC, for approximately $151.7 million.
The latest transaction continues a repurchase program that Strategy began earlier in 2026. After the latest week, $723.5 million of authorization remained under its digital credit securities repurchase program, according to the filing.
Strategy’s previous $174 million STRC repurchase came during the Sept. 14-20 period, when the company spent more on preferred-stock repurchases than on its $75.7 million Bitcoin purchase.
Earlier in September, Strategy doubled its digital credit securities repurchase authorization to $2 billion after spending $176.3 million on STRC during a week when it bought no Bitcoin.
Strategy said in July that it intends to repurchase STRC while the preferred stock trades below its $100 stated amount, subject to market conditions, liquidity and other capital priorities.
MSTR sales funded both transactions
Strategy financed the latest Bitcoin purchase and part of the STRC repurchase through MSTR common-stock sales.
The company raised $246.2 million in net proceeds by selling 1,469,165 MSTR shares between Sept. 21 and Sept. 27. The filing assigns $142.7 million of those proceeds to Bitcoin purchases and $103.5 million to STRC buybacks.
A further $48.1 million of the STRC repurchase came from Strategy’s USD Cash balance. Over the same period, the company used $22.1 million from its separate USD Reserve to pay preferred-stock dividends.
Strategy reported $18.84 billion of additional MSTR issuance capacity under its ATM program as of Sept. 27. No preferred shares were sold during the latest reporting period.
The latest funding structure differs from the previous week, when Strategy made no ATM stock sales and used existing cash to fund its Bitcoin purchase and STRC repurchases.
Strategy keeps $6.02 billion in dollar assets
Strategy ended Sept. 27 with a $5.02 billion USD Reserve and $1.00 billion in USD Cash, giving the company a combined $6.02 billion across the two balances.
The company defines the USD Reserve as capital designated to support preferred-stock dividends and interest payments on outstanding debt. USD Cash is maintained separately for Bitcoin purchases, reserve additions, capital management and other treasury uses.
The cash framework has changed materially since July, when Strategy built a $3.75 billion reserve while Bitcoin buying remained paused.
Strategy’s board expanded its STRC repurchase program during September while continuing to manage Bitcoin purchases, common-stock issuance and preferred-stock obligations through separate pools of capital.
As of Sept. 27, the company still had $723.5 million available under its digital credit securities repurchase authorization and $1 billion available under its separate MSTR common-stock repurchase program.
-
Fashion3 days agoWeekend Open Thread: J.McLaughlin – Corporette.com
-
Crypto6 days agoGoldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank Agree: The S&P 500 Rally Isn't Over
-
Tech & AI23 hours agoOpenAI is preparing “o,” an always-on ChatGPT assistant that could handle email
-
Tech & AI23 hours agoAnthropic turns Claude into an AI marketplace with 2,000+ plugins and connectors
-
Fashion4 days ago8 iPhone Accessories That Add Personality
-
Entertainment6 days agoThese 17 Fall Amazon Dresses Seriously Look Like Anthropologie
-
Tech & AI6 days agoReolink’s solar 4K security camera falls to its lowest price in months
-
Crypto6 days agoTrump-Xi Polymarket Odds for Handshake Hit 50%
-
Crypto6 days agoThis Bearish Netflix Stock Trade Can Cash In On Video Streaming Giant’s Woes
-
Crypto5 days agoBitcoin price tests $83,600 Supertrend support after $87K rejection
-
Crypto5 days agoCrude Oil Prices Pressured by Diplomatic Hopes in the Middle East
-
Business & Hussles6 days agoOil Price Today (September 23): Crude oil below $100 on hopes of US-Iran talks. What did Trump say?
-
Crypto6 days agoBitGo says Bitcoin absorbed Fed hike, CLARITY failure
-
Crypto5 days agoBitcoin Threatens Sub-$84,000 Breakdown as Long Liquidations Spike
-
Crypto7 days agoMeta Jumps 11% As Muse Shines and Investors Show an Appetite for Advancing AI
-
Crypto6 days agoDid Jim Cramer Just Give GameStop Stock the Kiss of Death When He Said the Turnaround Is Working?
-
Crypto7 days agoTrump, Xi Meet on S&P 500's Best Day Since Early August: Will Markets Stay Bullish?
-
Tech & AI5 days agoUiPath’s Dines says AI needs a manual and launches Cartographer to write it
-
Crypto5 days agoAs Amazon Stock Prospers, Traders Might Consider This Option Play
-
Crypto5 days agoStrategy resumed Bitcoin buying, but Strive gained more BTC per share

ChartNerd
(@ChartNerdTA)
You must be logged in to post a comment Login