Crypto
The Fed has drafted stablecoin rules. Who can qualify to issue one?
The Federal Reserve’s two September 24 proposals describe more than the assets behind a dollar token. One proposal sets the terms for an insured state member bank to seek approval for a stablecoin subsidiary; the other would govern the issuer, its reserves and its capital. The distinction determines which firms can use the Fed’s application route at all.
Summary
- The Fed released 2 proposed stablecoin rules at 2:30 p.m. EDT on September 24, 2026.
- An insured state member bank would seek Fed approval for a subsidiary, with 120 days for a decision after a complete application.
- The proposed initial capital floor is $5 million for a newly approved issuer during its first 3 years.
- A proposed 2% capital charge on uninsured reserve deposits would equal $20 million on a $1 billion exposure.
- A state issuer passing $10 billion in outstanding coins would face a proposed 360-day transition or stop net new issuance.
The Federal Reserve has proposed two stablecoin rule packages that put an approval test in front of insured state member banks and an operating rule around issuers under its supervision.
The Board of Governors published the proposals on September 24 at 2:30 p.m. Eastern time. Its 60-page application notice is Docket R-1900, RIN 7100-AH30. A separate, 392-page notice would implement reserve, capital, redemption, custody and related requirements under the GENIUS Act. Both are proposals open for comment, not licenses granted or final regulations. The comment period closes 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, a date the notices had not supplied when released.
The scope deserves care. The application notice addresses an insured state member bank seeking permission for a subsidiary to issue payment stablecoins. It does not offer every fintech a direct route to the Fed. The broader operating notice covers issuers supervised by the Board through the paths described in that proposal. An OCC application, a state-qualified issuer and a state member bank subsidiary do not become the same legal entity simply because all three propose dollar tokens.
Crypto.news reported the Fed proposals on September 24. Reading the two notices side by side reveals a more useful question than whether a proposed issuer can buy Treasury bills. Which legal entity submits the application, who controls the subsidiary, when does the review clock actually start, and how much capital would its chosen reserve mix consume?
The application belongs to the bank
The GENIUS Act permits three domestic issuer categories described in the Fed’s application notice: a qualifying subsidiary of an insured depository institution approved by its primary federal regulator, a federal qualified issuer approved by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and a state-qualified issuer approved by its state regulator. Different supervisors handle the different paths. An insured state member bank applies to the Federal Reserve for approval of its subsidiary under section 5 of the statute, codified at 12 U.S.C. 5904.
That legal distinction can be obscured by a familiar phrase, a bank stablecoin. In the Fed’s proposed application procedure, the bank is the applicant and its controlled subsidiary is the contemplated issuer. A technology company supplying wallets or software is not the applicant on that basis. A bank with a national charter has a different primary regulator. An uninsured state member bank does not use the insured-bank procedure in this notice. The notice says such a bank may approach its home state stablecoin regulator, while its existing Federal Reserve obligations continue to apply.
The proposed rule defines control using existing bank holding company concepts. Ownership or voting power of at least 25% of a class of voting securities is one path; control over a majority of directors is another; a controlling influence determined by the Board after notice and hearing is a third. A prospective issuer formed by multiple banks raises a practical question: which bank controls the company, and which regulator reviews it? The Fed asks that question explicitly in Questions 1 through 4 of its application notice.
For a consortium, the Board says it may accept one application on behalf of multiple insured state member banks if the venture counts as a subsidiary of each. The notice does not say that every multi-bank venture automatically meets that test. A structure in which a bank owns a small minority interest and a separate commercial company directs issuance needs analysis of who actually controls the issuer. A named bank on a consortium’s promotional list does not settle the question.
The distinction is timely because 21 financial institutions committed in September to form a stablecoin company, with a proposed launch in the first half of 2027 subject to conditions. The announcement is evidence of a planned venture, not evidence that its eventual entity will apply through the Fed’s insured state member bank route. Banks can collaborate through a company that uses another licensing path. The proposal leaves the legal design consequential.
The 120-day clock starts after a completeness decision
The proposed application process contains two clocks. Under section 247.30, the Board would tell an applicant within 30 days of receiving its materials whether the filing is substantially complete and identify missing information if it is not. The 120-day decision period runs from the submission date of a substantially complete application. If the Board does not decide a complete application within that period, the proposal restates the statute’s deemed-approval provision.
Filing a letter on day one therefore does not guarantee approval on day 120. The Fed says the submission date is the date its Reserve Bank received the final material needed for substantial completeness, not the later date when the Board sends its completeness notice. An application with omitted material needed to evaluate statutory factors is not substantially complete. A material change can cause a previously complete application to be treated as new if the information on hand is no longer sufficient.
The notice supplies examples: deteriorating financial condition, a material change to the issuer’s business plan, or another change affecting review. This is a procedural limit on a headline claim that applications are approved automatically if the Fed waits. Automatic approval is tied to a complete application and a defined 120-day period. A company cannot make the clock run by sending an incomplete business plan and calling it a filing.
Nor can the Board deny a substantially complete application for any reason it likes. The GENIUS Act, as described in the notice, limits denial to a determination that the applicant’s activities, including those of the proposed issuer, would be unsafe or unsound based on statutory factors. The proposal supplies a process for a denied applicant to seek a hearing and appeal. Those limits support the opposing reading of the application rule: the 30-day notification, 120-day decision period, limited denial grounds and appeal procedures constrain regulatory delay as much as they screen applicants.
There is an important difference between missing a deadline and refusing an application. The deemed-approval provision addresses a regulator’s failure to issue a decision on a complete file within 120 days. A timely denial triggers a separate process in which the applicant can contest the grounds. The proposed procedural rule details hearings and final determinations, while the statute restricts the substance of a denial. A prospective issuer should therefore distinguish three statuses in any public account of its progress: submitted, substantially complete and approved. None can safely be substituted for another. A press release that says an application was filed tells readers nothing by itself about when the 120-day clock began.
The Board says an applicant should send its letter to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank, which would forward a copy to the Board. The applicant has to sign, describe the proposal, state the action sought and explain why approval meets the statutory factors. Existing information that the supervisor already holds can in some cases reduce duplication, but the proposed rule still requires the information needed to assess the stablecoin subsidiary. The detail becomes especially relevant where an established bank launches a new entity: examination history for the parent does not itself supply a business plan, governance scheme and redemption process for the proposed issuer.
The disclosure burden remains substantial. The proposed application includes a business plan, financial information, policies and procedures, relevant agreements, governance and material third-party relationships. It asks who does what across the proposed program. A bank can outsource technical tasks, but the Board still wants to see the issuer’s operating structure and the bank’s oversight of it. The notice invites pre-filing feedback for complex proposals, an option that does not itself constitute approval.
Reserve choice changes the capital calculation
The operating proposal separates the dollars backing outstanding tokens from the issuer’s own loss-absorbing capital. A dollar of qualifying reserves for a dollar of coins is a backing requirement. Capital is a second layer, intended to absorb risks to the issuer’s continued operations and certain exposures. Describing a fully reserved issuer as needing no capital confuses those two accounts.
The Fed proposes a $5 million initial minimum during a three-year de novo period, indexed to nominal U.S. GDP. The applicable minimum would be the higher of that floor and a calculated risk-based requirement. The Board could set a different amount in specified circumstances, including when the calculated minimum does not match an issuer’s exposures. The $5 million is neither an application fee nor a universal final capital requirement. It is a proposed floor for a newly approved Board-supervised issuer in its initial period.
One line of the 392-page notice makes the reserve decision measurable. Proposed section 247.17(a)(1) assigns a 2% capital requirement to uninsured eligible deposit claims held as reserve assets. The Fed links that treatment to bank credit risk. A bank failure could delay recovery or leave a loss in the issuer’s reserves. The notice specifically recalls Circle’s approximately $3.3 billion in uninsured USDC reserves held at Silicon Valley Bank when regulators closed that lender in March 2023.
Apply the proposed rate to simple, hypothetical exposures. If an issuer holds $250 million in uninsured eligible deposits, the 2% component is $5 million. At $1 billion, it is $20 million. At $3.3 billion, matching the approximate historical exposure cited in the notice without implying that today’s Circle would hold that sum in such accounts, the arithmetic reaches $66 million. These are illustrations of one proposed component, not complete regulatory capital calculations, final costs or findings about a named issuer.
The arithmetic exposes the point at which the initial $5 million floor ceases to tell a reader much about the reserve bank choice. Even before operational risk and any other applicable charges enter, a hypothetical $1 billion uninsured deposit exposure produces a $20 million component. The proposal asks whether the 2% calibration should instead range from 1% to 4%, or vary with the credit standing of the deposit bank. At 1% the same $1 billion example produces $10 million; at 4% it produces $40 million. Those alternative rates are questions for commenters, not adopted rules.
The Fed’s framework considers other categories as well, including undercollateralized reverse repurchase agreements, eligible funds, operational risk and non-reserve assets. The calculation uses different measurement periods for some exposures. It would be false precision to treat the deposit example as the entire capital bill. The comparison does show why a prospective issuer should model its custody and reserve structure alongside its licensing application. A plan naming a reserve bank but leaving the size of uninsured exposure unspecified omits information central to its capital needs.
The proposal’s treatment of operating risk cannot be replaced with the usual argument that short Treasury bills have little credit risk. A redemption desk must work on weekends when a Treasury market does not; software access, failed transfers, custody controls, reconciliation and customer screening can each demand money even when reserves remain intact. The Fed’s separate capital calculation for operational risk therefore depends on inputs other than the market value of government securities. The agency proposes quarterly measurement for the revenue-based component and asks whether other measurement frequencies would work better.
The choice between depositing cash at a bank and holding short government securities is not binary in practice. An issuer needs settlement balances to pay redemptions, while it can hold another part of its backing in permissible liquid instruments. A design promising rapid redemptions but putting every dollar into instruments that must first be sold depends on the sale and payment chain working when customers want out. Conversely, an issuer that keeps large uninsured bank deposits may have immediate access to cash in normal conditions but incurs the proposed deposit credit-risk component. Neither observation proves one reserve mix is right for every program. Both follow from the Fed’s distinct treatment of liquidity and bank exposure.
Custody creates another decision. Proposed sections on covered custodians describe protection for reserve property and for the private keys that allow token issuance. An issuer that relies on an outside bank to hold Treasury securities and a separate technology firm to manage minting permissions needs to map which party controls each asset, who can authorize movement, and how the issuer reconciles outstanding coins with eligible backing. The application asks for material third-party relationships and relevant agreements for that reason. A marketing statement that the reserves are safe does not disclose the chain of authority.
The Fed describes a possible increase or decrease in the de novo capital requirement when it finds a different amount sufficient to support operations. It asks commenters whether the three-year period is appropriate and whether the initial $5 million level, indexed to nominal GDP, should be higher or lower. For a prospective issuer, a model that merely budgets $5 million as a fixed, permanent cost misses both the proposed higher-of test and the regulator’s reserved authority. The precise requirement would emerge from the adopted rule and the issuer’s actual exposures.
Different agencies have already taken their own steps. The FDIC proposed bank issuer standards in April, and the OCC published its stablecoin proposal in February. The Fed notice compares its proposed $5 million starting floor with those agencies’ approaches. Similar figures across proposals do not remove the differences in jurisdiction, application process or final text. None of these proposals should be described as a final license for a specific company.
The $10 billion boundary is a second eligibility test
State supervision is a route for eligible issuers below a statutory scale threshold. Proposed section 247.51 addresses a state-qualified issuer whose consolidated outstanding issuance passes $10 billion. The Board proposes a transition to its federal framework within 360 days, unless the issuer stops issuing new payment stablecoins on a net basis while above the line or obtains an available waiver permitting continued state supervision.
The notice asks an issuer crossing that level to notify the Board within five calendar days. Its notice would identify the supervising state, the outstanding amount, the crossing date and whether it has stopped net new issuance. A capital analysis would follow within 270 days. A request for a waiver, if sought, would be due within 240 days under the proposed procedure. A transition is not simply a new label on the same business; the issuer would need to meet the applicable federal requirements within the timetable.
Consider an issuer at $9.9 billion. A $200 million net issuance would take it to $10.1 billion, above the threshold, under a simple point-in-time calculation. The proposal asks whether measurement should instead use a rolling average and whether issuance by nonconsolidated affiliates should count. Those questions remain open. It is therefore premature to assert that splitting tokens among subsidiaries would keep a program permanently below the line. The Board expressly asks commenters how affiliated issuance should be treated.
The U.S. stablecoin licensing landscape already includes different supervisors and unfinished implementing rules. A growing state issuer faces the timing question earlier than a startup seeking its first license. It may need to prepare for federal supervision while current growth, reserve composition and capital remain moving targets. The $10 billion provision does not mean a coin above that value instantly becomes illegal. The notice specifies a transition period, a possible waiver and an alternative of halting net new issuance.
A promise to redeem has its own operating requirements
The proposed reserve rule would require eligible assets backing outstanding coins on a one-to-one basis. The Board would require a public redemption policy setting out a timeframe, fees, minimum redemption quantity and procedures. Proposed section 247.12 says timely redemption may not exceed two business days after a request, subject to applicable requirements. Onboarding and customer screening still apply. An exchange customer who can sell a token in seconds is not necessarily the same person as an eligible customer redeeming directly with its issuer.
That distinction can be missed when an issuer’s market price stays close to one dollar. Secondary-market trading shows what buyers and sellers will accept; it does not answer who has a contractual redemption claim on the issuer and through which channel. The application notice asks about redemption policies precisely because the issuer needs an operational route from token presentation to payment. A banking partner, custodian and transfer system sit in that route.
Safekeeping requirements in the other notice reach reserve assets, tokens used as collateral and private keys used to issue payment stablecoins. The Fed would apply requirements to certain Board-supervised custodians holding covered assets, including protections intended to keep customer property separate from a custodian’s creditors. The scope differs from a generic wallet software provider that does not control the customer’s keys. The proposal asks where those boundaries should fall.
Governor Michael Barr, in his September 24 statement accompanying the notices, supported safeguards that address runs and payment system risks. The strongest case for the Fed’s approach is therefore operational: clear redemption terms, eligible liquid reserves, capital where bank deposits are uninsured and documented custody arrangements could make an issuer’s promise easier to evaluate before a stress event. The strongest concern from a prospective entrant is the amount of upfront work and uncertainty while separate agencies finish rules that are meant to fit together. Both readings are compatible with the text; the eventual requirements depend on comments and final decisions.
What the proposal cannot tell applicants yet
The Fed has not published a list of approved issuers under these new proposals. Its application notice does not reveal which prospective companies will apply through a state member bank, an OCC-supervised entity or a state regulator. A charter, a pending application, a partnership announcement and permission to issue under a final regime are distinct milestones.
Several variables remain open on the face of the notices: the final capital calibration, whether the $10 billion threshold uses a momentary observation or an average, how multi-bank issuers document control, and how final rules across agencies line up. The notices are extensive because the Board is asking questions on these points, not because it has resolved all of them. A claim that a specific issuer qualifies today would require its organizational documents, supervisory status, application and regulator decision.
There is a checkable way to follow the process. Federal Register publication starts the stated 60-day comment period. Final rule text determines whether the proposed $5 million floor and 2% deposit charge survive. Application notices and decisions would show which banks actually seek approval. Consortium ownership documents would show whether a bank controls the issuer. Outstanding issuance disclosures would identify state issuers nearing $10 billion.
The Fed’s application notice says it will notify an applicant within 30 days whether its filing is substantially complete. Once the final required materials reach the appropriate Reserve Bank, the proposal defines the submission date from that receipt, which starts the statutory 120-day decision period.
What to watch
- Federal Register publication: Check the publication date to calculate the 60-day comment deadline.
- Final Fed rules: See whether the $5 million initial floor, 2% deposit charge and 360-day state-issuer transition survive.
- Public application decisions: Look for an identified insured state member bank and the subsidiary it proposes to control.
- Issuer ownership disclosures: Check public filings for who controls any multi-bank venture before assigning it a Fed application route.
- Outstanding coin disclosures: Track whether a state-qualified issuer approaches or crosses $10 billion in consolidated issuance.
FAQ
Can any stablecoin company apply directly to the Fed?
No. The proposed application route in Docket R-1900 addresses an insured state member bank seeking approval for a subsidiary. Other potential issuers use the regulator applicable to their legal structure.
Does the bank or its subsidiary submit the application?
The insured state member bank submits it. The proposed subsidiary would issue the payment stablecoin if the relevant approvals are obtained.
Is an application approved automatically after 120 days?
The statute’s deemed-approval provision applies when the Board does not decide within 120 days of a substantially complete application’s submission date. The Fed proposes a separate 30-day notice about completeness and can identify missing information.
Is $5 million enough capital for every issuer?
No. The proposed $5 million floor applies during an initial three-year period, and an issuer would need the higher of that figure and its calculated requirement. The Board could require a different amount in specified circumstances.
How would uninsured reserve deposits affect capital?
The proposal assigns a 2% component to eligible uninsured deposit claims held in reserves. On a hypothetical $1 billion exposure, that component alone is $20 million, before other applicable requirements.
Can a bank consortium apply through one filing?
The Fed says it may accept one filing on behalf of multiple insured state member banks if the issuer qualifies as a subsidiary of each. The notice seeks comment on how control works in a consortium.
What happens when a state issuer passes $10 billion?
The proposal describes a 360-day transition to federal supervision, an option to stop net new issuance while above the threshold, and a possible waiver. It asks for notification within five calendar days of crossing the line.
Are the Fed’s September 24 rules already in force?
No. They were published as proposals for comment, and the actual comment deadline depends on Federal Register publication. 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.
When it was first proposed in December 2025, the rule was divisive, drawing ire from environmental advocates while garnering praise from auto-industry trade groups. The Administration finalized it last week with a signoff from President Donald Trump.
The President commented on the forthcoming rule Sept. 26, saying the new standards would “take the waste out of building cars in America.”
“That means LOWER PRICES, saving families thousands on a new, beautiful, and safe car,” he wrote on Truth Social.
The claim that the revisions will pass down cost savings to American buyers, however, relies on several factors, including automakers’ pricing decisions, fuel costs, and broader economic conditions.
What changes under Trump’s new fuel economy rule?
Former President Joe Biden’s regulations were put in place in 2024 to reduce car-based greenhouse gas emissions, decrease dependence on fossil fuels, and spur a transition to electric and hybrid vehicles. The Trump Administration has claimed that its revisions are more focused on bolstering the auto industry and making safer, newer cars more accessible.
EigenLayer held $19.7 billion at its peak and liquid restaking tokens grew more than 1,000% in the first six weeks of 2024. But the services buying security never paid enough to cover both the base staking yield and a premium on top, so the second yield restaking promised never materialized.
On Sept. 8, DefiLlama’s restaking category held $10.02 billion and generated $99,977 in fees over the prior week. The liquid staking category, on $51.87 billion, generated $27.35 million. Per dollar secured, ordinary staking earns roughly 53 times more.
Two developments then removed what was left of the incentive to restake. Points programs subsidizing deposits wound down through 2025, and slashing went live in April 2025. Slashing is the penalty that confiscates part of an operator’s staked ETH when it misbehaves, by going offline or signing conflicting messages, for example. So restaking suddenly carried a real, priced downside where before the risk had been theoretical. There was no extra yield to compensate.
Set ether.fi aside and the rest of the sector is small. Renzo, Kelp, Swell, Puffer Finance and Bedrock, the five largest remaining liquid restaking tokens, made $953,350 in combined gross profit in the second quarter of 2026. Three quarters earlier the same five made $2.18 million. Puffer, which raised $23 million, recorded $21,590 for the quarter. Swell recorded $22,370.
The income statements also show which part of these businesses was ever profitable, and it was not the restaking. On Kelp’s books, EIGEN token rewards appear at $460,600 in gross revenue and $460,600 in cost of revenue: they arrive and pass straight to depositors, leaving nothing with the protocol. Puffer and Swell book staking rewards the same way. Whatever profit these companies made came from the orinary staking fees charged underneath the restaking layer.
“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.
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.
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.
$XRP just printed it's 6th weekly close beneath the 50 week EMA. The bears contInue to hold their defence line, with the bulls support below at $1.31 as a guardrail. (20 week EMA. For the time being, we remain compressed. https://t.co/7j6d2KB27L pic.twitter.com/r9kwHDmf2R
—
ChartNerd
(@ChartNerdTA) September 28, 2026
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Trump Rolls Back Fuel Economy Standards. Will Cars Really Get Cheaper?
Boston Bruins reject trade offer for Detroit Red Wings captain Dylan Larkin amid top-line center search | NHL News
Peak XV ups Surge seed investment ceiling to $5M, unveils 18-startup cohort
-
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 & AI1 day agoOpenAI is preparing “o,” an always-on ChatGPT assistant that could handle email
-
Tech & AI1 day agoAnthropic turns Claude into an AI marketplace with 2,000+ plugins and connectors
-
Fashion5 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?
-
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
-
Crypto1 day agoWall Street Giant Warns AI Agents Could Trigger a New Kind of Bank Run
You must be logged in to post a comment Login