The euro and pound continue to decline, approaching important support levels amid a stronger US dollar. Further moves in EUR/USD and GBP/USD will depend on incoming macroeconomic data, particularly developments in the US labour market.

Today, market attention will focus on economic data from Europe and the US. In the eurozone, services-sector business activity indices will be released, with weaker readings potentially keeping pressure on the euro. In the US, weekly labour-market data will be published, while additional attention will be paid to comments from Federal Reserve representative Christopher Waller. However, tomorrow’s employment report will be the key market reference point. Following the weak ADP reading, further signs of a cooling labour market could strengthen expectations of a more accommodative Fed policy and put pressure on the dollar, while stronger figures could support further dollar gains.

For the pound, domestic data and signals from the Bank of England will provide an additional point of reference. Services-sector business activity figures will be in focus, along with a speech by Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey, whose comments could influence expectations for the central bank’s future policy.

EUR/USD

As expected, EUR/USD has tested the important 1.1580–1.1620 support area. The decline has so far slowed near the upper boundary of the 1.1520–1.1560 range formed in August. Weak eurozone data could push EUR/USD further into this range. A return above 1.1620, followed by a sustained move above this level, would weaken the current bearish scenario and create conditions for a corrective recovery.

Key events for EUR/USD:

• today at 10:15 (GMT+3): Spain Services Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI);
• today at 10:55 (GMT+3): Germany Composite Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI);
• today at 15:30 (GMT+3): US initial jobless claims.

GBP/USD

GBP/USD continues to play out the bearish “tower” pattern described earlier. A sustained move below the important 1.3500 support level keeps the risk of further declines towards the 1.3400–1.3440 area. A rebound from this zone could trigger a corrective recovery, while the bearish scenario could be considered invalidated after a sustained move above 1.3560.

Key events for GBP/USD:

• today at 11:30 (GMT+3): UK Services Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI);
• today at 17:00 (GMT+3): US ISM Non-Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index;
• tomorrow at 11:50 (GMT+3): speech by Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey.

Overall, EUR/USD and GBP/USD remain in a downtrend near important support levels, although their further direction will depend on incoming macroeconomic data. Following the weak ADP report, tomorrow’s US employment report will be the key reference point. Further signs of cooling in the labour market could increase pressure on the dollar, while stronger figures could support further dollar gains and lead to continued declines in both currency pairs.

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

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

On 26 August, Meta announced an agreement with a bipartisan group of 52 state and territorial attorneys general and the Attorney General of the District of Columbia. Under the agreement, the company will pay around $18 billion over ten years and introduce additional restrictions for underage Facebook and Instagram users, including a two-hour daily usage limit and an overnight app block from midnight to 6:00 am. Around $5.3 billion of this amount will only be payable if TikTok and YouTube implement similar measures and each pay a corresponding amount. Meta also expects to recognise around $10 billion in legal expenses in Q3 2026 in connection with the agreement.

On the four-hour META chart, the medium-term picture remains range-bound, with the price continuing to move within a broad range between the 690 and 540 areas. Within this range, a short-term decline occurred between 15 and 30 July, during which a pattern resembling a converging triangle formed near the lower end of the move. The pattern’s boundaries progressively narrowed the amplitude of price fluctuations. However, the vertical volume profile throughout the pattern’s formation does not appear typical of this type of consolidation, raising questions about the technical integrity of the structure.

After breaking above the pattern’s upper boundary, the price remains within the current market profile and is now squeezed between the Point of Control (POC) at $587.00 and the upper boundary of the profile at $600.00, attempting to establish itself above the pattern. Red resistance is located around $612.00 and is relatively close to the profile. If the price returns to the pattern’s range and establishes itself below the lower boundary of the profile at $564.00, a green support level around $550.00 could come into play. This level is also relatively close to the profile.

The RSI + MAs indicator is showing readings of 62, 54 and 49. The oscillator is above the neutral zone, while the moving averages remain within the zone, meaning that it is still too early to speak of a confirmed breakout.

Key Takeaways

The atypical volume pattern within the formation, combined with the incomplete RSI + MAs signal, leaves open the question of how sustainable the price’s move above the established structure will prove to be. An additional source of uncertainty is that part of the litigation settlement remains conditional on decisions by Meta’s competitors across the industry.

Buy and sell stocks of the world’s biggest publicly-listed companies with CFDs on FXOpen’s trading platform. Open your FXOpen account now or learn more about trading share CFDs with FXOpen.

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

Demand for US spot crypto ETFs cooled Wednesday, reversing recent inflow streaks in both Ether and XRP products. After more than a week of persistent buying, spot Ether ETFs saw net outflows totaling $48 million, while spot XRP ETFs recorded $7.2 million in net withdrawals.

Bitcoin ETFs moved in the opposite direction, drawing fresh inflows even as broader cryptocurrency prices slipped. The flow shift matters because ETF purchases are often treated as a barometer for US institutional sentiment toward major digital assets.

Key takeaways

• Spot Ether ETFs pulled $48 million in net outflows on Wednesday, ending 12 consecutive trading days of inflows.
• Spot XRP ETFs recorded $7.2 million in net outflows, ending an 11-session inflow streak that added about $170 million.
• Ether’s largest products led withdrawals, with BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) down $53.4 million on the day.
• Bitcoin ETFs saw inflows of $101.2 million after a prior day of net outflows.

Ether spot ETFs break a 12-day inflow run

According to SoSoValue, US-listed spot Ether ETFs recorded $48 million in net outflows on Wednesday. This marked the end of a 12-trading-day streak during which the funds collectively attracted $1.62 billion.

Farside Investors data showed that withdrawals were broad-based across the largest Ether vehicles. BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) led the day’s outflows with $53.4 million, while Fidelity’s Ethereum Fund (FETH) lost $26.2 million. Grayscale’s Ethereum Staking ETF (ETHE) also saw $23.5 million in net outflows.

One product, however, helped cushion the overall move: BlackRock’s staked Ether ETF (ETHB) posted roughly $53 million in net inflows. Together, these figures suggest that Wednesday’s redemptions were not uniform across every Ether-related wrapper—investors appeared to reallocate rather than exit the theme entirely.

XRP ETFs end an 11-session inflow streak

Spot XRP ETFs also flipped from steady demand to withdrawals. According to SoSoValue, the funds posted $7.2 million in net outflows on Wednesday, ending an 11-session inflow streak.

That inflow run had brought in roughly $170 million, lifting cumulative XRP ETF inflows to about $1.68 billion. The reversal on Wednesday therefore matters less as a single-day withdrawal and more as an indicator that recent momentum may be losing traction.

Bitcoin ETFs attract money as Ether and XRP slip

While Ether and XRP saw net outflows, Bitcoin ETFs took the opposite path. Wednesday’s activity brought $101.2 million in net inflows, following a day earlier marked by $236.5 million in net outflows.

This divergence is notable: it suggests investors were not necessarily retreating from crypto ETFs altogether, but instead rotating exposure across assets during a softer pricing tape.

Price weakness coincides with the rotation in flows

The shift in ETF flows came alongside a broader pullback in major tokens. CoinGecko data cited in the original reporting indicated that over the previous seven days, Ether was down 3.4%, XRP down 2.4%, and Bitcoin down 1.3%.

At the time of publication, Ether, XRP, and Bitcoin were trading around $1,360, $2,407, and $77,744, respectively. While the direction of ETF flows doesn’t always map perfectly to short-term price moves, the timing here aligns with a market mood shift—investors appeared to pause or rotate capital as returns weakened.

For traders and allocators, this combination—slowing inflows in Ether and XRP paired with inflows into Bitcoin—can be interpreted as a near-term preference for the most liquid exposure during uncertainty. It also highlights that the “ETF flow narrative” may vary significantly by asset, even when the overall crypto market is moving in tandem.

What to watch next

Investors should monitor whether Wednesday’s withdrawals in Ether and XRP are followed by another reversal back into inflows, or whether the streak break reflects a more durable shift. Given that one staked Ether product recorded substantial inflows even as other Ether funds saw outflows, upcoming flow data may further reveal whether the market is reallocating within the Ether ETF complex or reducing overall exposure.

Meta announced on 26 August that it had reached an agreement with a bipartisan group comprising 52 state and territorial attorneys general, together with the Attorney General of the District of Columbia. Under the terms of the agreement, the company is expected to pay approximately $18 billion over ten years and introduce tighter protections for underage users of Facebook and Instagram. These measures include a two-hour daily usage cap and an overnight restriction blocking access to the apps between midnight and 6:00 am.

Of the total amount, around $5.3 billion would only become payable if TikTok and YouTube adopt comparable measures and make equivalent payments. Meta also anticipates recording roughly $10 billion in legal expenses during Q3 2026 as a result of the agreement.

On the four-hour META chart, the medium-term structure remains broadly range-bound, with price continuing to fluctuate between the 690 and 540 areas. During the decline from 15 to 30 July, a converging triangle-like formation developed close to the lower portion of the broader range. Its boundaries gradually contracted as the amplitude of price movements narrowed.

However, the volume profile accompanying the formation is not particularly characteristic of this type of consolidation. This unusual volume behaviour raises some doubt over the reliability of the pattern and whether the subsequent move should be interpreted as a fully confirmed technical breakout.

Following the move above the upper boundary, Meta remains inside the current market profile and is now trading in the relatively narrow zone between the Point of Control (POC) at $587.00 and the profile’s upper boundary at $600.00. Price is effectively attempting to hold above the former pattern.

The next red resistance area sits near $612.00, only a short distance above the profile ceiling. Conversely, a return into the previous structure would become more concerning if price establishes itself below the profile’s lower boundary at $564.00. In that scenario, attention could shift towards the green support around $550.00, which is also positioned relatively close to the profile.

The RSI + MAs indicator currently reads 62, 54 and 49. The oscillator has moved above the neutral area, while the moving averages remain around the neutral zone. As a result, the technical picture has improved, but there is not yet enough confirmation to treat the breakout as firmly established.

Key Takeaways

Meta has managed to remain above the converging structure, but the unusual volume behaviour during the pattern’s development weakens the conviction behind the move. The RSI + MAs readings are also not sufficiently aligned to confirm a decisive change in momentum.

The outlook therefore remains dependent on whether price can sustain itself above the current structure and move through the $600.00–$612.00 area. A failure to hold the breakout zone, particularly a move below $564.00, would increase the risk of a return towards $550.00.

The legal settlement also adds a separate layer of uncertainty, as part of the financial commitment remains conditional on whether Meta’s competitors adopt comparable measures. This leaves both the technical breakout and the broader fundamental backdrop subject to further confirmation.

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

Australia’s financial regulator issued a final warning on Sept. 2 to crypto businesses relying on temporary enforcement relief.

Qualifying firms have until Sept. 30 to apply for the licences required under existing financial services law.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission said firms operating without authorization from Oct. 1 could face civil and criminal penalties. Potential fines may reach 10% of annual turnover.

ASIC has recorded more than 45 digital asset-related licence applications since it updated its guidance in October 2025. The figure rose from approximately 30 applications reported when the regulator extended its original June deadline.

The regulator’s warning applies to businesses providing digital asset products or services that qualify as financial products under existing law. It does not mean that every crypto asset or activity automatically requires the same licence.

ASIC’s crypto deadline covers several licence routes

Businesses that require an Australian Financial Services licence must submit a new application or request a variation to an existing licence by Sept. 30. The appropriate route depends on the products and services each company provides.

Firms that need an Australian Market Licence or a Clearing and Settlement facility licence face different conditions. They must notify ASIC in writing that they intend to apply and complete a pre-application meeting before the deadline.

ASIC’s updated Information Sheet 225 provides examples showing how financial product rules can apply to digital assets, custody services, wrapped tokens, staking arrangements and stablecoins. Companies must assess the rights attached to each product rather than relying only on its technical description.

Bitcoin and some other digital assets may not qualify as financial products by themselves. However, related services, investment arrangements or derivatives can still fall within the licensing regime.

The legal distinction has already received attention from Australian courts. In related coverage, crypto.news reported that the High Court ruled 7–0 that Block Earner’s fixed-yield product required a financial services licence.

ASIC’s temporary relief ends on Oct. 1

ASIC introduced its sector-wide no-action position after consulting the industry in December 2024. The relief gave eligible businesses time to review the updated guidance and prepare licence applications.

The regulator initially set June 30, 2026, as the deadline. It later extended the period by three months and expanded the arrangements to cover some authorized representatives and intermediary structures. As crypto.news reported, the extension moved the licensing deadline to Sept. 30.

The no-action position is not a licence, legal exemption or confirmation that a company’s activities comply with the law. It only describes circumstances in which ASIC does not intend to pursue enforcement during the transition.

Companies lose that protection if they fail to meet its conditions. From Oct. 1, ASIC may investigate businesses that appear to provide regulated financial services without authorization.

The warning about fines of up to 10% of annual turnover describes the possible maximum penalty. It does not mean that every unlicensed firm will automatically receive a fine at that level. Courts determine penalties after considering the applicable law and circumstances of each case.

Australia’s 2027 crypto framework is a separate regime

The Sept. 30 deadline concerns duties that already exist under Australian financial services law. It is separate from the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Act 2026.

Parliament passed that legislation on April 1. It received Royal Assent on April 8 and will take effect on April 9, 2027, according to ASIC’s implementation roadmap.

The law establishes dedicated rules for digital asset platforms and tokenized custody platforms. ASIC will license and supervise companies covered by the new categories.

Existing authorizations will remain relevant after the framework begins. Some businesses may therefore need to obtain licences under the current rules and later vary those licences to cover activities regulated by the 2027 framework.

ASIC plans to consult on standards and publish further regulatory guidance during the implementation period. The regulator will also continue meeting with companies and industry groups as the new licensing system takes shape.

Previous crypto.news coverage examined ASIC’s developing approach to stablecoins and wrapped tokens, including how particular products may fall within existing financial regulation.

Crypto firms must decide whether to apply or stop services

Businesses relying on the relief must determine before Sept. 30 whether their activities require an AFS, market or clearing and settlement licence. Firms uncertain about their position may need legal advice based on their products, custody arrangements and customer agreements.

Submitting an application does not guarantee approval. Applicants must satisfy ASIC’s requirements concerning competence, financial resources, compliance systems, risk management and dispute resolution.

Companies that cannot meet the relief conditions may need to stop providing affected services from Oct. 1. Operating while an application is being prepared will not necessarily protect a firm if it missed the applicable deadline.

ASIC’s latest figures show that more than 45 businesses have entered the licensing process. The regulator has not identified those applicants or disclosed how many applications involve exchanges, custodians, tokenization providers or other services.

Enforcement activity may become clearer after the temporary relief expires. ASIC has not announced a specific investigation or prosecution connected to the deadline, but it has stated that noncompliant firms could face both civil and criminal action.

Ledger has been hit with a proposed class action seeking at least $500 million over allegations that poor security and disclosure failures tied to a December 2023 incident exposed customers to cryptocurrency theft and other financial losses.

The complaint, filed by Douglas Kim in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 27, accuses the hardware wallet maker of failing to adequately protect customer personally identifiable information and cryptocurrency security data. Kim brought the case individually and on behalf of a proposed nationwide class.

Kim alleges that Ledger failed to properly notify customers after the December 2023 security incident and did not fully disclose its scope. The lawsuit claims hackers later used customer contact information to impersonate Ledger representatives and gain access to customers’ cryptocurrency wallets and private keys.

The complaint brings seven causes of action, including claims under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Ledger lawsuit centers on December 2023 security incident

The December 2023 incident involved Ledger Connect Kit, a software library used to connect hardware wallets with websites and decentralized applications.

The complaint says attackers gained access to the NPMJS account of a former Ledger employee through a phishing attack. Ledger had failed to properly revoke the former employee’s access after their employment ended, according to the filing.

Ledger acknowledged the access control failure at the time, stating that the former employee’s NPMJS access had not been properly revoked.

Once inside the account, the attackers uploaded a malicious version of Ledger Connect Kit that could redirect transactions to addresses they controlled by inducing users to approve malicious transactions. Ledger publicly acknowledged that the malicious software could trick users into signing transactions that drained their wallets.

crypto.news previously reported that a former Ledger employee was phished before an attacker used the compromised access to publish malicious code. Ledger CEO Pascal Gauthier said at the time that the incident was isolated to third party applications and that Ledger hardware wallets remained unaffected.

Estimates at the time put losses from the Connect Kit exploit between roughly $480,000 and $600,000. Ledger later said it would reimburse affected users and announced plans to phase out blind signing for Ethereum virtual machine decentralized applications.

The new lawsuit goes beyond losses reported immediately after the Connect Kit compromise. Kim alleges that hackers accessed and used Ledger customer PII, including names, email addresses and phone numbers, and that Ledger failed to provide customers with sufficient warning about the incident.

Plaintiff says scammers stole nearly $1.95 million in crypto

Kim, who first bought a Ledger hardware wallet around 2017 and purchased a Nano X in New York City in 2021, says he later became the victim of a Ledger impersonation scheme.

On Feb. 18, 2025, Kim received a call from someone claiming to represent Coincover, which the caller presented as a department within Ledger, according to the complaint. The caller allegedly told Kim that someone in the Netherlands had attempted to register for Ledger Recover using his information and that his cryptoassets could be at risk.

A second person then contacted Kim while posing as another Ledger representative and asked him to check his email as proof that the caller was legitimate.

Kim received what appeared to be an email from Ledger, the filing says. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the attackers used customer contact information originating from the December 2023 incident to identify him as a Ledger customer and trigger the email. Kim reserved the right to amend that allegation after obtaining Ledger’s breach forensics and incident response records through discovery.

The purported representative directed Kim to a website designed to resemble Ledger’s services and instructed him to enter his confidential passphrase to reset the device, according to the lawsuit. Kim complied and was given what he believed was a replacement passphrase.

Two days later, Kim checked his holdings and discovered that cryptoassets valued at $1,948,074 had been stolen, the complaint alleges. He has not recovered any of those assets.

Ledger customers have continued to face impersonation attempts. In February 2026, scammers sent fake Ledger letters directing recipients to phishing websites designed to collect wallet recovery phrases.

Similar physical mail attacks were reported in April 2025, when scammers reportedly used data leaked in 2020 to send Ledger branded letters containing QR codes that directed customers to websites seeking their recovery phrases.

Complaint points to Ledger’s 2020 data breach

Kim’s lawsuit uses Ledger’s earlier security history to support its allegations of inadequate safeguards.

A 2020 breach affected more than 270,000 Ledger customers, according to the complaint, exposing information that included names, physical addresses and phone numbers. The data later became available on black market channels online. Litigation over that breach was separately brought in the Northern District of California.

The new complaint alleges Ledger failed to sufficiently improve its security practices following that incident and accuses the company of downplaying both the earlier breach and the December 2023 incident.

Kim argues that Ledger’s security representations were particularly important because the company requires customers to provide information when buying its products. The complaint lists names, email addresses, delivery addresses, phone numbers, payment details, product information and order amounts among the customer data collected by Ledger.

Ledger has advertised security measures including encryption, employee training, role based authentication, two factor authentication, continuous system monitoring and independent security testing, according to statements reproduced in the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges those representations were deceptive because Ledger failed to implement adequate measures to protect customer information and did not sufficiently address foreseeable risks after earlier cybersecurity incidents.

Security questions around Ledger resurfaced in August when the company said an Ethereum signing flaw was fixed before another security company publicly disclosed the issue. Ledger CTO Charles Guillemet said users running updated firmware and applications were protected, while no independently verified thefts linked to that specific vulnerability had been reported at the time.

Days later, Ledger rejected claims it was hacked after OneKey’s security team reproduced a transaction substitution flaw using an outdated version of Ledger’s Ethereum application. Ledger said protections had already been added in a newer application version.

Class action seeks at least $500 million

Kim proposes a nationwide class covering U.S. individuals whose PII, cryptoassets, cryptocurrencies or crypto credentials were compromised as a result of the alleged data breach and who suffered financial losses, unauthorized transactions or identity theft mitigation costs. The complaint says the proposed class could number in the thousands.

A separate New York subclass would cover qualifying customers whose transactions with Ledger, including product or service purchases or the creation of Ledger accounts, occurred in New York.

The complaint estimates Kim’s damages at approximately $2 million and claims collective class damages could reach at least $500 million, potentially running into billions of dollars depending on the number of customers affected and the size of individual losses. Those figures are estimates advanced by the plaintiff and have not been established by the court.

Kim’s filing seeks declarations that Ledger violated New York’s SHIELD Act and General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, along with findings of negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The requested relief includes actual, compensatory, statutory, treble and punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

The plaintiff has demanded a jury trial.