Picks and shovels

‘Known unknowns’

Bitcoin Core merged a rule change on Oct. 22 that opens a faster lane for vulnerability fixes: a flaw judged easy for attackers to find again can now be patched across every maintained release line at once, with an advisory published as each fix lands. The change comes as a network snapshot from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) shows 43.6% of sampled public Bitcoin Core peers running versions that no longer receive patches.

Under the new rule, developers can classify a flaw at triage, judging how readily it can be turned up again, including with the help of large language models. Bitcoin Core developer Antoine Poinsot announced the change on the bitcoindev mailing list in the merged pull request updating the project’s security policy. He argued the old embargo achieves little while it delays the availability of a fixed release. The trade-off he flagged is that mitigations get less time to prove themselves on development branches. As of Oct. 23, the new category had not yet been applied publicly to any specific bug.

The change ends a policy that held medium- and high-severity bug details until two weeks past the end of life of the last affected release, a span that could stretch close to a year. Embargo, the period during which vulnerability details stay withheld until fixed releases are widely deployed, has relied on bugs being hard to rediscover. AI tools weaken that assumption, so long silences now delay fixes more than they protect operators.

How the old policy played out

The project’s practice is visible in the disclosure of CVE-2024-52911. The high-severity use-after-free in block validation, which affected versions later than 0.14.0 and earlier than 29.0 and let a crafted invalid block crash a node, was reported in November 2024, fixed in 29.0 in April 2025 and disclosed on May 5, 2026, about 388 days after the fix. The pattern continues: the 32.0 release notes state that three medium- or high-severity flaws corrected in version 30.0 stay under wraps until two weeks after the new version ships.

The unsupported share

Bitcoin Core maintains only its three newest major release lines, currently 29.x, 30.x and 31.x. The KIT snapshot from Oct. 18 counted 3,671 of 8,422 self-reported Bitcoin Core peers on lines already past end of life, with the rest on 31.x (3,243), 30.x (712) and 29.x (635). The count covers public IPv4 and IPv6 peers only, so Tor-only nodes, non-listening nodes and privately run exchange, custodian and miner infrastructure fall outside it. Readers who want the basics can start with what crypto nodes are and how they work.

The share is set to grow. When version 32.0 ships, 29.x leaves the maintenance window, and a projection from the snapshot puts 4,306 of the 8,422 peers, or 51.1%, on unsupported lines if the sample stayed unchanged. The project’s life cycle page still listed the 32.0 release date as TBA as of Oct. 24, with only release candidates in the download directory.

Core 32.0 also switches the default partially signed Bitcoin transaction format from version 0 to version 2, which matters for multisig setups mixing old and new nodes. Because Bitcoin has no central authority to force upgrades, network security depends on operators choosing to update.

Key takeaways

• Cardano trades near $0.201 on Monday, extending its decline after three consecutive losing weeks.
• Funding has turned negative at -0.0032%, reinforcing the bearish derivatives picture.
• ADA faces initial resistance at $0.213, while weak momentum leaves recovery attempts vulnerable.

Cardano fell below $0.202 on Monday as pressure persisted across its derivatives, spot, and technical indicators.

ADA traded around $0.201 following three consecutive weeks of losses, with its decline exceeding 20% since early October. The token remains beneath several major moving averages, suggesting buyers have yet to establish a sustained recovery.

Although momentum is approaching oversold territory, the broader setup continues to favor sellers. Any near-term rebound would face several resistance levels before materially improving the outlook.

Derivatives positioning tilts toward shorts

CoinGlass data shows Cardano’s long-to-short ratio at 0.92 on Monday, close to its lowest reading in more than a month.

A reading below one indicates that short positioning outweighs long positioning within the measured dataset. The figure points to a cautious market in which traders continue to favor downside exposure.

ADA’s funding rate also turned negative, reaching -0.0032%. Negative funding means short traders are paying longs to maintain their positions, consistent with stronger demand for bearish exposure.

Together, the metrics reinforce the weak price trend, although neither guarantees that losses will continue.

CryptoQuant’s summary indicators add to the cautious picture. The platform flags large whale orders and overheating conditions in Cardano’s futures market. Its spot and futures indicators also show sell-side dominance, suggesting selling pressure extends beyond leveraged positioning.

Large orders alone do not establish the direction of whale activity. However, alongside the reported selling imbalance and negative funding, the data offers limited evidence of a decisive shift toward stronger buying demand.

ADA remains below key moving averages

Cardano’s daily technical structure remains bearish, with its price below the 50-day, 100-day, and 200-day Exponential Moving Averages.

These averages sit between approximately $0.218 and $0.237, forming a series of overhead barriers.

The Relative Strength Index stands at 33, just above the conventional oversold threshold of 30. That reading reflects persistent weakness while leaving room for a short-lived corrective bounce.

The Moving Average Convergence Divergence indicator remains negative, with the MACD line below its signal line. Its subdued bearish profile provides little confirmation that momentum is turning in buyers’ favor.

The former trendline break near $0.213 represents Cardano’s immediate resistance. Above that, buyers would face the 100-day EMA at $0.218 and the 50-day EMA at $0.224. Further resistance sits around $0.236, reinforced by the nearby 200-day EMA at $0.237.

A sustained move through that cluster would bring $0.245 into focus, while $0.299 remains a more distant barrier.

On the downside, $0.200 is the nearest psychological reference as ADA trades just above it.

For buyers, reclaiming $0.213 would be an initial improvement. A more convincing recovery would require ADA to overcome its moving averages alongside stronger momentum and easing selling pressure.

A crossover token launch between prominent crypto trader Kimchi and memecoin platform Pump Fun has descended into chaos after users were left wondering whether or not Kimchi had been hacked.

Pump Fun and Kimchi, real name Clayton Kim, have been working together to promote Pump Fun’s “Pill Your Friends” campaign.

The platform’s co-founder Alon Cohen described Kim as “the first ever example of a trader becoming a celebrity,” while Pump Fun tried enticing users to become “the next Kimchi” by using their platform. 

Read more: Pump Fun and Kraken delete Hunter Biden $LAPTOP promotion

Kimchi’s X account shared rugpull

Things turned sour yesterday when Kimchi’s X account shared a new token in the form of a QR code. 

The Project Kimchi token reached a market cap of $14 million before plummeting to roughly $600,000 within minutes. It currently sits at just $183,000.

During this time, Cohen had reshared — and quickly unshared — the post. Kimchi’s X account then began deleting Pump Fun-related posts and removed the platform from his bio. 

Read more: Pump Fun paid $700K to callers shilling mostly tiny tokens

Prior to this, there were already various Kimchi-themed tokens. The fiasco led many users to suspect that Kimchi was hacked.

Some suspect Kimchi is behind it

Some users believe the post may have been intentional, and that the token’s disastrous launch was, at best, a bad case of mismanagement.

Crypto trader Fabiano highlighted that Cohen didn’t share any hack warnings after unsharing the post. 

He also suggested that Cohen resharing the post would have involved minute-by-minute planning, and that Kimchi’s deletion of his Pump Fun posts doesn’t make sense if the two had a partnership deal.  

Kimchi’s alleged $40M TRUMP trade debunked

In its promotion, Pump Fun also reiterated an unverified claim that Kimchi had made over $40 million trading TRUMP.

However, crypto analyst Bubblemaps reports that his publicly verifiable profits are closer to $6 million.

There is a possibility of an unrevealed addresses, but Bubblemaps notes “he likely would have revealed it by now.”

Kimchi rarely posts online, but when he does, it’s often in the form of lavish displays of wealth. 

Kimchi’s YouTube channel only displays one vlog at the time of writing. It was posted two days ago and features a Pump Fun promo in a private jet.

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.

The High Court of England and Wales has granted permission for applicants to appeal a legal ruling concerning property rights over seized Bitcoin, according to reporting by Pluang.

The legal permission allows applicants to challenge this ruling while individual ownership claims remain to be settled separately.

According to analysis by law firm Simons Muirhead Burton, proving that money taken in a fraud was used to buy digital assets does not automatically mean victims can recover them.

Legal Context for Crypto Investors

The ruling highlights how digital assets operate without physical borders, yet legal claims to them remain tied to specific national legal systems. The court found that Chinese law governs the existence and content of the proprietary rights asserted by the applicants.

As legal proceedings continue, the court has not yet decided whether investors own the assets in question. This case illustrates the importance of understanding jurisdiction and legal protections when participating in digital asset markets.

For ongoing context on regulatory developments in the UK market, see our analysis on the FCA Authorisation Gateway.

U.S. spot Bitcoin funds have swung from $524.8 million in net inflows on October 21 to $635.6 million in outflows on October 22, followed by another $137.9 million in withdrawals on October 23.

Farside Investors’ fund-by-fund table shows the turn across BlackRock, Fidelity, Ark Invest and other issuers, but it cannot identify the buyer who took the other side of a Bitcoin sale.

An investor can sell an ETF share to another investor without a coin changing hands. A market maker can carry shares for a time, or an authorized participant can redeem a block of them for cash or Bitcoin. Only some of those routes require an immediate sale in the underlying market. The daily flow total combines the result at the fund level and leaves the trading path mostly out of view.

Bitcoin traded around $80,000 to $82,000 as the withdrawals arrived. The fund withdrawals coincided with a lower Bitcoin price. Neither figure shows whether $773.5 million worth of coins was sold on public exchanges over those two days. The issuers’ redemption procedures, the timing of hedges and the identities of eventual Bitcoin buyers determine how much pressure reached spot trading.

Two days erased most of a three-day inflow run

Farside recorded $526.7 million entering U.S. spot Bitcoin products on October 19, $23.2 million on October 20 and $524.8 million on October 21. Over three sessions, the funds added $1,074.7 million. Outflows of $635.6 million on October 22 and $137.9 million on October 23 removed $773.5 million, or about 72% of the previous three sessions’ gains. Subtracting the two amounts leaves a $301.2 million net inflow for the five sessions. The arithmetic uses Farside’s rounded daily dollar totals; the October 23 row still displays a dash for one issuer and can be revised.

The change between Wednesday’s $524.8 million inflow and Thursday’s $635.6 million withdrawal was a $1,160.4 million swing in the daily net flow. It was not a $1.16 billion redemption. SoSoValue put October 22 outflows at $635.49 million and October 21 inflows at about $528.4 million in crypto.news coverage of the price decline. Farside’s figures differ slightly, so the five-session calculation here uses Farside throughout.

BlackRock’s IBIT posted a $254.1 million outflow on October 22 and Fidelity’s FBTC lost $217.5 million, Farside’s table shows. Their combined $471.6 million made up about 74% of the day’s net withdrawal. Ark Invest and 21Shares’ ARKB lost $109.4 million, Bitwise’s BITB lost $27.4 million and Grayscale’s GBTC lost $29.5 million. Morgan Stanley’s MSBT had a $2.3 million inflow. A net figure can therefore conceal simultaneous inflows at one fund and redemptions elsewhere.

IBIT lost another $110.3 million on October 23, while FBTC lost $31.8 million. Morgan Stanley’s fund added $4.2 million. A negative daily total tells readers which fund shares were removed after creations and redemptions were netted; it says nothing on its own about the identity or motive of an investor selling shares in the open market. Institutional portfolios, retail accounts, arbitrage desks and market makers can all trade the same shares.

Bitcoin failed to hold a move toward $85,000 during the three-day run of ETF inflows. Lookonchain and Farside then published different daily tallies for the period. Lookonchain’s graphic labeled its figures October 22 without identifying a completed U.S. session, while Farside’s October 21 row listed $524.8 million. The two figures refer to differently labeled reporting snapshots.

An ETF share can change hands without a Bitcoin trade

An ordinary investor sells ETF shares through a broker. A buyer acquires those shares on the stock exchange, and the fund’s Bitcoin balance does not change simply because the trade occurred. The secondary market can process heavy selling if another investor, a dealer or a market maker is willing to hold the shares at an acceptable price.

The next question is what the buyer does with them. A market maker may sell its inventory to someone else, hedge Bitcoin price exposure with derivatives or assemble enough shares to redeem a basket. Authorized participants, the financial firms that deal directly with the trust, can submit those baskets and receive the specified redemption proceeds. Several participants may serve a fund, and a single participant can act for multiple clients. The route from an investor’s sell order to a redemption is therefore neither automatic nor visible in a daily ETF flow table.

BlackRock’s IBIT prospectus filed with the SEC says only authorized participants can redeem baskets. Its trust can make redemptions using partial cash, all cash or, at the sponsor’s discretion, Bitcoin in kind. The document says the choice can depend on participant capabilities and preferences as well as tax considerations. A shareholder who is not an authorized participant cannot demand Bitcoin from the trust directly.

A $100 million IBIT share sale to another investor would raise trading volume without changing the trust’s Bitcoin holdings. No basket needs to be redeemed in that exchange transaction. Shares outstanding can fall if an authorized participant later gathers a basket and returns it to the trust for redemption proceeds. Even then, the proceeds may be Bitcoin or cash, and the counterparty’s next trade is not disclosed by the daily flow number.

Existing ETF shares represent a claim on a trust that already holds Bitcoin. A trade in those shares does not require the trust to buy another coin. Creations and redemptions change the number of shares and the corresponding assets. Secondary trading transfers exposure between owners. Confusing these layers turns an observation about who held the security at the close into an unsupported claim about a simultaneous order in a crypto exchange’s spot book.

The redemption route determines where selling occurs

Cash redemptions and in-kind redemptions can produce different immediate trades. With an all-cash redemption, a trust needs cash to pay the authorized participant and may instruct an execution agent to sell Bitcoin. The execution, its venue and its timing are separate from the public tally of share redemptions. With an in-kind redemption, the trust can transfer Bitcoin to the authorized participant or its designated agent. The trust’s wallet balance falls, but the recipient decides whether to hold, sell, hedge or deliver the coins to another customer.

The Securities and Exchange Commission approved in-kind creations and redemptions for spot crypto exchange-traded products in July 2025. Its decision ended the cash-only requirement imposed when spot Bitcoin products first launched in January 2024. The commission described in-kind processing as a way to reduce costs and improve efficiency. Permission to use it does not establish that every fund, on every day, used that route.

Commissioner Mark Uyeda said the former cash-only structure could force issuers to sell Bitcoin to raise redemption cash. In-kind settlement removes that specific forced sale at the trust, though a recipient of the Bitcoin remains free to sell later. Daily flow dashboards do not report how many of the October 22 redemptions were paid in cash, partial cash or Bitcoin.

BlackRock’s prospectus sets an in-kind redemption order cutoff at 2 p.m. Eastern on the trade date. Its other cash and partial-cash orders follow their stated deadlines, and proceeds are generally expected on the next business day after an accepted redemption request. Market makers may begin managing exposure before a basket is submitted or settle positions later. Matching every October 22 withdrawal dollar to a Bitcoin sale during the same New York trading session would ignore those timing differences.

Some funds have revised their procedures since the SEC’s 2025 decision. An in-kind transfer can separate a fund outflow from a same-day Bitcoin sale by the trust. Each fund’s prospectus describes the options it offers, but public daily flow figures do not say which option it used for a particular October 22 basket.

Who could take the other side?

Every executed Bitcoin sale has a buyer, but a public flow number does not label that buyer. If a trust sells coins for a cash redemption, the direct counterparty may be a trading firm, an exchange customer or a dealer filling an institutional order. A dealer can subsequently sell the position to several customers. If the trust delivers Bitcoin in kind, the authorized participant receives the coins first and can keep them as inventory, use them to cover a hedge, pass them to another client or sell them. The eventual buyers may not transact at the same hour as the ETF redemption.

Price is part of how those counterparties meet. At a quoted price, bids may be insufficient for a seller’s desired size; the next available bids sit lower. A trade clears when a buyer accepts the offered amount and the seller accepts the price. A $635.6 million fund outflow does not tell us how many coins, if any, were offered through public order books, or how deep those books were at each moment. It cannot by itself assign the whole Bitcoin price move to one class of seller.

Glassnode’s October 21 market study described buying around $80,000 to $81,500 after an October 15 dip. Its analysts placed the estimated cost basis of U.S. spot ETF holdings and corporate treasury holdings in that region, with potential selling and liquidation clusters between about $85,000 and $87,500. A cost basis is an average calculated for a cohort, not a standing bid from every member of the cohort. The research showed where buyers had previously appeared; it did not identify who bought the October 22 or 23 redemptions.

The same study cited an October 19 ETF inflow of $653 million on thin volume, a different number from Farside’s $526.7 million for that day’s fund table. The discrepancy appears in published datasets and should not be smoothed away. Provider coverage, preliminary timestamps or methodology may differ; neither source offers transaction-level identities for the buyers on the other side. The five-session calculation in this article consistently uses Farside.

Direct spot demand can come from private clients, exchange users, corporate treasuries or trading firms arbitraging prices across venues. Their motives cannot be reconstructed from the aggregate ETF totals. The ledger shows transfers between addresses, yet exchange and custodian wallets often pool many customers’ coins. An address receiving Bitcoin is not necessarily a newly bullish investor, and an exchange inflow is not automatically a market sell order.

The case for treating outflows as real selling pressure

Redemptions do remove shares and assets from a fund, and the process can still create selling pressure. Someone who takes Bitcoin in kind might sell it to raise dollars, while a fund paying cash might sell the coins itself. Market makers buying ETF shares from departing investors may hedge by selling Bitcoin futures or spot. Selling and hedging can press on price even when the trades do not line up neatly with a single daily fund-flow print.

Bitcoin’s decline and ETF withdrawals occurred together during October 22 and 23. Bitfinex analysts had warned of liquidation risk as futures open interest grew despite falling prices. The October 23 price report put BTC near $81,450 after a retreat from the $84,000 to $85,000 area and recorded more than $400 million in broader crypto liquidations from CoinGlass. Liquidations can add forced sales or buybacks independently of fund redemptions. Weak technology stocks and other risk assets were moving at the same time, according to contemporary market coverage. The available data do not show how much of Bitcoin’s drop came from ETF redemptions.

Farside recorded $773.5 million in net withdrawals over two sessions. Dealers or other investors had to take on the shares or the resulting Bitcoin inventory as the funds shrank. Demand for fund shares weakened, although the public figures do not show how much Bitcoin funds or market makers sold in response.

An authorized participant can sometimes warehouse coins while seeking another counterparty, but inventory has a cost and risk. A rapidly moving Bitcoin price makes that risk larger. If spreads widen or dealers step back, a sale that might have been absorbed quietly in a calmer market can move through available bids more visibly. The size and capacity of those intermediaries on October 22 are not reported in the fund flow table. Price movement is consistent with pressure, though it does not reveal the identity of its source.

Glassnode recorded buyers near $80,000 after the October 15 dip. Their orders on that day say little about how much they would buy during another selloff. Macro news, liquidations and further redemptions can change the price buyers are willing to pay. The estimated ETF cost basis around that level offers no guarantee that it will hold.

The fund totals hide a mixed week

Thursday’s $635.6 million withdrawal was bigger than Wednesday’s $524.8 million gain, but the preceding Monday added $526.7 million. Friday’s $137.9 million loss then reduced, without erasing, the weekly net inflow. The last two sessions therefore show net withdrawals, while the five-session total shows a net inflow. The choice of window changes the description of ETF demand without telling us how much Bitcoin traded outside the funds.

Farside lists a cumulative $57.251 billion in net inflows to the covered funds in its October 23 table. This historical total is not their current Bitcoin holdings or the amount investors would receive if every share were sold. Asset values move with BTC’s price, and Grayscale’s GBTC alone carries roughly $28 billion in cumulative net outflows in the provider’s series. Cumulative dollars flowing into and out of shares answer a different question from coins held at the custodian or current market value of the shares.

The issuer breakdown complicates any claim that all institutions sold in unison. On Thursday, IBIT and FBTC dominated withdrawals while MSBT gained $2.3 million. On Friday, MSBT gained $4.2 million as the larger funds remained negative. Simultaneous directions can reflect different clients, mandates, fees or execution choices; the table cannot say which explanation applies. It shows enough to rule out a single, uniform trade across all funds.

An ETF share’s discount or premium to its net asset value can signal whether the exchange price and underlying holdings have moved apart. Authorized participants may be motivated to create or redeem baskets when the gap covers their costs, helping align the two markets. A small discount alone does not prove a completed redemption, and a large one may persist if trading or settlement becomes difficult. Issuer price and NAV disclosures are useful alongside fund flows, but they are still not a tape of the authorized participant’s Bitcoin trades.

The 2025 SEC approval gave market participants another way to close those gaps. BlackRock’s current prospectus nonetheless leaves the redemption form to the sponsor’s discretion, and authorized participants have no obligation to submit orders. The daily fund table records the outcome but does not disclose each basket’s settlement method or the authorized participant’s trades.

What price and on-chain data can establish

Market data offer fragments of the answer. Exchange trade records identify the time, price and size of transactions, and some venues report whether aggressive buyers or sellers crossed the spread. Order books show posted bids and offers that can disappear or change before they execute. Neither dataset labels a Bitcoin trade as an IBIT redemption or tells readers whether a market maker is closing an earlier hedge.

On-chain transfers can show coins leaving a known custodian address, subject to the quality of address identification and the custodial settlement timetable. A wallet transfer between a custodian and an authorized participant may represent an in-kind redemption, an internal reorganization or another operational movement. Transfers through omnibus addresses require particular care. Without transaction-level confirmation from the fund or a participant, a matching dollar amount and timestamp are suggestive but not proof.

The ETF’s own holdings, shares outstanding and NAV can provide a more reliable fund-level cross-check. A decline in shares outstanding accompanied by lower Bitcoin holdings is consistent with a net redemption. Comparing consecutive reports needs adjustment for the fund’s fee accrual, pricing timestamp and any other assets or liabilities. The count of coins moved is more informative about trust inventory than a chart of share trading volume, but it still stops short of identifying whoever ultimately bought the coins.

Glassnode’s October study adds the holders’ estimated cost basis, the distribution of on-chain coin ages and areas where leveraged positions may be forced out. Such models describe investor positioning, not individual identities. Its observation that bids refilled near the October 15 low is evidence of buying at that point. It does not prove that those same buyers remained there when October 22’s ETF outflow was announced.

At a hypothetical fixed Bitcoin price of $81,000, Farside’s $773.5 million two-day outflow is equivalent to about 9,549 BTC. The calculation divides $773.5 million by $81,000 and measures scale only. Fund share valuations, fees, cash balances and redemption methods vary, so 9,549 BTC is not an observed count of coins sold.

A buyer’s identity remains private even when the flow is public

Public disclosures can show that Bitcoin left a trust; they generally cannot reveal the names behind every share order and subsequent coin trade. Broker records identify customers to their intermediaries, but those records do not appear in Farside’s aggregate table. Market makers can offset positions across several venues or derivatives contracts. A dealer who receives coins in a redemption may already have a customer order for them, avoiding any visible exchange sale at the point of delivery.

The publicly available October 22 and 23 fund data do not name the buyers. Another investor or a dealer may have bought the ETF shares. If a basket was redeemed, an authorized participant could have received Bitcoin and either held it or sold it to a client or on an exchange. Naming a final buyer would require transaction records or a disclosed trade, neither of which is available in the fund table.

Holding an ETF share and buying a coin are different forms of exposure. One person buying shares from a seller can keep the fund’s Bitcoin where it is. Another can receive Bitcoin in kind from the trust and transfer it without touching a public exchange. Direct buyers at a lower price can absorb a later spot sale. Each route can contribute to the same observed combination of ETF outflows and a falling Bitcoin price, which is why a price chart cannot reconstruct the transaction chain by itself.

Farside’s table will show whether net redemptions continue after the next trading close, subject to corrections. Fund holdings and share counts can show which trusts shed assets. Exchange volume, spreads and the direction of active trades can show how Bitcoin markets responded. Keeping those readings separate preserves the distinction between money leaving an investment product and coins changing owners in the market underneath it.

What to watch

• The next completed fund rows: Check Farside’s issuer entries and any revisions to October 23 before treating the $301.2 million five-session net inflow as final.
• Shares and holdings: Compare each issuer’s shares outstanding, Bitcoin holdings and NAV at consistent timestamps to see whether redemptions changed trust inventory.
• Redemption disclosures: Check current prospectuses and any issuer updates for the cash, partial cash or in-kind methods used; permission to redeem in kind does not establish daily usage.
• Spot liquidity: Watch executed volume and bid depth near $80,000 to $81,500, the area where Glassnode recorded buying on October 15, without treating it as a guaranteed floor.
• Price versus fund demand: Compare completed ETF flows with Bitcoin’s trading range and liquidation data, while keeping other market drivers in view.

FAQ

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 October 25, 2026.