Abraxas Capital has bought another 13,000 ETH worth $32.39 million in the spot market to hedge part of a 141,180 ETH short position on Hyperliquid valued at $353.27 million.

Lookonchain said on Sept. 8 that Abraxas Capital purchased the additional Ether while keeping its much larger short position open on the decentralized derivatives platform. The blockchain analytics account described the transaction as another spot purchase made specifically to hedge the short.

Sweden’s tax authority has ordered six crypto companies operating in Boden to pay nearly 540 million Swedish kronor (approx. $56 million) in additional taxes after finding that the firms used business structures to obtain tax benefits they were not entitled to.

Swedish public broadcaster SVT reported on Sept. 3 that the six companies accounted for most of the latest tax adjustments imposed on crypto businesses following a review by Skatteverket, the Swedish Tax Agency. The authority said some companies had structured their operations in ways that concealed crypto mining activity.

Patrik Lillqvist, head of intelligence at Skatteverket, said the arrangements were designed to secure tax advantages that would not have been available if the businesses had been classified as crypto miners.

“The companies that we have inspected often have a special arrangement to conceal that they are engaged in mining,” Lillqvist said, according to a translation of his remarks. “The purpose is to obtain tax advantages that the companies are not entitled to.”

The latest assessments form part of the agency’s review of the crypto industry between 2024 and 2026. Nine companies have received tax adjustments totaling more than half a billion Swedish kronor during that period, with six of them operating in Boden.

Sweden crypto tax review centers on mining operations

Boden, a city in northern Sweden, has attracted crypto miners for years because of its access to power and data center infrastructure. The region was already home to around 10 crypto mining companies by 2018, when operators were increasingly looking to Sweden as a location for mining facilities.

Tax treatment later became a source of tension between the industry and Swedish authorities. Sweden moved in 2023 to remove electricity tax relief previously available to data centers, a decision that affected Bitcoin miners operating energy-intensive facilities in the country.

The latest Skatteverket cases concern how companies described the nature of their businesses for tax purposes. According to the agency, some firms presented operations in a way that hid their role in creating new units of cryptocurrencies through mining.

SVT’s earlier investigation into Sweden’s crypto industry found in 2024 that companies had deprived the state of around 1 billion Swedish kronor in taxes, with most of the cases concentrated in Boden. The new assessments show that disputes involving the sector continued through 2026.

Lillqvist criticized companies that entered Swedish communities and used arrangements that the authority believes deprived the state of tax revenue.

“You come to a society and steal from it,” he said.

Several companies have challenged Skatteverket’s decisions in court. Sweden’s administrative court and administrative court of appeal have so far sided with the tax authority in the cases they have considered, according to SVT.

Bikupan Datacenter takes dispute to Sweden’s top administrative court

Bikupan Datacenter, which has operated in Boden and Robertsfors, is among the companies contesting the tax authority’s position.

The company has been granted corporate restructuring after becoming unable to pay its debts, while its tax dispute has reached Sweden’s Supreme Administrative Court. The case remains under consideration.

Bikupan is connected to HIVE Digital Technologies, whose Swedish operations have been caught in a longer-running disagreement over the tax treatment of its business. HIVE said in March that it was scaling down Bitcoin mining at its Boden facility as it challenged the way Swedish tax rules were being applied to the operation.

Johanna Törnblad, CEO of Bikupan Datacenter and HIVE’s Sweden country manager, rejected Skatteverket’s assessment of the company’s historical operations.

“When it comes to the historical operations of the Bikupa companies, we do not share the Swedish Tax Agency’s assessment,” Törnblad told SVT by email.

She said Bikupan’s restructuring application explains the company’s position that crypto mining itself was performed by external mining pools that were independent of the HIVE group.

Under the company’s account of its business model, the Bikupa entities sold computing capacity, or computing power, which could be used for workloads including artificial intelligence.

HIVE has been moving its Boden site toward AI computing

The distinction has become more relevant to HIVE’s plans for its Swedish infrastructure as the company moves resources toward high-performance computing and artificial intelligence.

Crypto.news previously reported in June that HIVE generated record fiscal 2026 revenue of $298 million while expanding its AI computing business. Its high-performance computing operation generated $19.5 million during the fiscal year, up 94% from $10 million a year earlier, while contracted annual recurring revenue from its BUZZ HPC unit reached $35 million.

HIVE reported 440 megawatts of global power capacity across Canada, Sweden and Paraguay at the end of the fiscal year. Its installed Bitcoin mining hashrate increased from 6.5 exahashes per second to 25.1 EH/s during the same period, although the company’s Bitcoin holdings fell to 150 BTC as of March 31.

Part of its AI expansion has involved repurposing infrastructure that was originally used for crypto mining. The company has been converting its Boden facility into a Tier 3 liquid-cooled high-performance computing data center designed to support 2,000 Nvidia GPUs.

The company had already disclosed plans in November 2025 to retrofit the Boden site from a Tier I mining facility into a liquid-cooled Tier III+ high-performance computing center, while expanding GPU infrastructure in Canada.

HIVE’s dispute with Swedish authorities has continued while Bikupan deals with its tax liabilities and restructuring proceedings. The company maintains that its historical Swedish entities provided computing power while independent external mining pools carried out the actual crypto mining.

Skatteverket has maintained the opposite position in its assessments, treating the reviewed operations as mining activity and arguing that the structures used by the companies gave them tax advantages for which they did not qualify. Bikupan’s challenge to that assessment remains before the Supreme Administrative Court.

F2Pool co-founder Chun Wang criticized Zcash on Sept. 8 as ZEC traded near $1,130 following a rally that carried the privacy coin into the cryptocurrency market’s top ten.

Wang, who posts under the name Chun at @satofishi, called the move a “narrative bid.” He argued that Zcash’s funding history, optional privacy model, governance disputes and recently disclosed Orchard vulnerability did not justify its valuation.

His comments are opinions rather than evidence of wrongdoing. Several underlying events are documented, but some of Wang’s conclusions omit later changes to Zcash’s funding and privacy systems.

ZEC was trading around $1,130 when this report was prepared, down nearly 7% over 24 hours. CoinMarketCap placed its capitalization near $19 billion and ranked it tenth, while CoinGecko placed it ninth. Rankings can differ because platforms use different supply and asset-classification methods.

The token remained more than 2,300% higher than one year earlier, according to market data cited in coverage of Zcash’s move above $1,000. Its rally accelerated after Grayscale converted its Zcash Trust into a U.S.-listed spot exchange-traded fund in August.

Zcash funding criticism needs historical context

Wang said Zcash did not have a fair launch because 20% of its early block rewards went to founders, employees, advisers and investors.

The underlying percentage is correct. During Zcash’s first four years, miners received 80% of each block subsidy, while the Founders’ Reward received 20%. Because that arrangement covered only the first issuance period, it represented 2.1 million ZEC, or 10% of the planned 21 million maximum supply.

The recipients included founders, investors, employees and organizations supporting development. The 2.1 million ZEC did not go exclusively to Electric Coin Company, a distinction noted in historical community discussions.

The Founders’ Reward ended with the Canopy upgrade in November 2020. Zcash then introduced a development fund that also received 20% of block rewards between the first and second halvings.

Under that arrangement, 7% went to Electric Coin Company, 5% to the Zcash Foundation and 8% to Major Grants, later renamed Zcash Community Grants. Miners continued receiving 80%.

That development fund added a maximum of approximately 1.05 million ZEC, equal to 5% of the eventual supply. Combined with the original Founders’ Reward, the two mechanisms directed up to 15% of the maximum supply toward founders, investors and different development recipients across eight years.

Wang’s description becomes less precise when applied to the present system. Since November 2024, Zcash has continued allocating 20% of block rewards for ecosystem funding, but the recipients changed.

The official Zcash network page states that 8% goes to Zcash Community Grants and 12% entered a protocol-tracked lockbox. Direct payments to Electric Coin Company and the Zcash Foundation ended under that structure.

The lockbox had no immediate withdrawal mechanism when introduced. Its purpose was to hold funds until the community agreed on a decentralized distribution process. Therefore, describing the current allocation as a direct continuing payment to “a company and its backers” would be inaccurate.

Whether any protocol-funded development mechanism is appropriate remains a policy judgment. Bitcoin generally directs its subsidy to miners, while Zcash chose to reserve part of issuance for software development and ecosystem grants.

Zcash governance dispute did not stop the network

Wang also cited the January departure of the Electric Coin Company team following a dispute with Bootstrap, the U.S. nonprofit that governed ECC.

The departure occurred on Jan. 7. Then-CEO Josh Swihart said the entire team had been “constructively discharged” after employment conditions changed. He accused a majority of Bootstrap’s board of acting against the company’s mission.

Bootstrap disputed that framing. Its board said the disagreement concerned nonprofit law, fiduciary responsibilities and plans involving the Zashi wallet and outside investment.

The board argued that assets held by a public-benefit nonprofit could not be transferred in a way that created improper private benefits. No court has ruled on either side’s description of the dispute.

The former ECC employees did not abandon Zcash development. They announced a new company, Zcash Open Development Lab, and continued working on the protocol and privacy-related products.

Zcash founder Zooko Wilcox defended the integrity of the Bootstrap directors and said the conflict did not affect the protocol. The blockchain continued operating because miners, nodes and multiple development groups did not depend on ECC’s corporate existence.

The episode still exposed a governance divide among organizations responsible for core software, funding, trademarks and wallets. Wang’s statement that the disagreement proved Zcash was “broken at the top” is his interpretation, not an established technical finding.

ZEC fell sharply when the split became public in January. That verified price reaction showed that traders considered the developer dispute material, even though the blockchain itself did not halt.

Ironwood contained the Orchard supply risk

Wang’s strongest factual criticism concerns a vulnerability in Orchard, Zcash’s main shielded pool between May 2022 and July 2026.

Security researcher Taylor Hornby discovered the flaw in May. The error involved an under-constrained element within Orchard’s cryptographic circuit. In theory, an attacker could have supplied invalid inputs and created counterfeit ZEC that ordinary verification would accept.

Developers deployed an emergency fix on June 1. They reported finding no evidence that anyone had exploited the vulnerability.

However, the privacy properties of Orchard prevent developers from cryptographically proving that no counterfeit ZEC was created before the patch. The flaw existed from Orchard’s May 2022 activation until the emergency response, according to the technical disclosure.

That limitation supports part of Wang’s criticism. Transparent ledgers allow observers to calculate visible supply directly. A shielded pool conceals transaction values, so its supply integrity depends on the soundness of its cryptographic rules.

The inability to prove non-exploitation is not evidence that counterfeiting occurred. It means the available evidence cannot eliminate that possibility with cryptographic certainty.

Zcash activated Ironwood at block 3,428,143 on July 28. The upgrade opened a separately tracked shielded pool and prevented Orchard from accepting new deposits or internal transfers. Orchard users could still withdraw funds.

Ironwood introduced an accounting checkpoint that prevents more ZEC from leaving Orchard than entered it. Any counterfeit balance remaining in the old pool therefore cannot pass freely into the new pool beyond the recorded amount.

As crypto.news reported, Ironwood replaced Orchard with a formally verified shielded design. The verification provides stronger assurance that Ironwood cannot create hidden counterfeit ZEC under its stated design assumptions.

The upgrade did not retroactively prove that Orchard was never exploited. It contained the unresolved supply risk and created a new accounting boundary for future transactions.

Optional privacy is seeing greater use

Wang argued that optional privacy had left most ZEC in transparent addresses for much of the network’s history. Zcash does allow both transparent and shielded transfers, unlike Monero, where privacy protections apply by default.

Exchange support, wallet limitations and the higher computing requirements of early shielded transactions slowed adoption. Transparent addresses remained easier for many services to support.

Recent data presents a more mixed picture. Shielded ZEC increased from about 8% of supply in early 2024 to approximately 30% by May 2026. Shielded transactions accounted for 59.3% of network activity at that point, according to data cited in reporting on growing shielded adoption.

Those figures do not prove that Zcash has developed a broad commercial economy. They do show that the claim that privacy remains almost unused is outdated when applied to current network activity.

Wang compared Zcash unfavorably with Solana and Hyperliquid, arguing that both networks process more visible economic activity. That comparison relies on different use cases. Solana supports general-purpose applications, while Hyperliquid focuses on trading. Zcash primarily offers payments with optional transaction privacy.

Market capitalization also does not measure protocol revenue, payment volume or user numbers directly. ZEC’s top-ten position records the market value assigned to circulating tokens, not a verified ranking of network utility.

BlockFi error was real but unrelated to Zcash

Wang separately referred to BlockFi’s 2021 promotional payment error. BlockFi confirmed that some customers received rewards denominated in Bitcoin instead of U.S. dollars.

Some users withdrew the unexpected payments before BlockFi reversed them. The company said fewer than 100 customers withdrew incorrect awards and initially placed its remaining exposure near $10 million.

Reports showed individual account credits involving hundreds of BTC. However, BlockFi did not publicly verify Wang’s specific example of a customer receiving 701.4 BTC instead of $701.40.

The payment mistake had no operational connection to Zcash, its developers or zk-SNARK cryptography. Wang used it as an analogy for poor attention to detail, alongside his earlier disagreement with a Zcash team member over Eastern Standard Time and Eastern Daylight Time.

His six-year-old decision to block the company was personal. Confusion over time-zone terminology does not establish that Zcash’s cryptographic work was defective.

What happens next for Zcash

Ironwood remains the main technical response to the Orchard vulnerability. Users must move funds out of Orchard for them to enter the new shielded pool, while developers can monitor the accounting checkpoint during that migration.

The ecosystem must also determine how development funding is governed and distributed. Debate over the 20% allocation is likely to continue because it affects miners, grant recipients and ZEC holders differently.

For traders, the immediate question is whether ZEC can retain its top-ten capitalization after a steep rally. The token fell from an intraday high above $1,216 to around $1,130, showing elevated volatility.

A rally driven partly by ETF access and short liquidations does not prove Chun Wang’s criticism correct or incorrect. It shows that market price, protocol security and network use remain separate measures requiring independent evidence.

FAQs

A U.S. federal court has ordered the forfeiture of roughly $212,700 in stablecoins linked to wages earned by North Korean IT workers, giving the Justice Department a partial victory in its attempt to seize more than $7.74 million in digital assets tied to an alleged sanctions evasion network.

NK News reported on Sept. 7 that U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled that funds seized from a crypto wallet beginning with “0x81c4” should be forfeited to the U.S. government. The Sept. 3 ruling granted part of the Justice Department’s request for default judgment while rejecting its attempt to immediately take control of other assets included in the case.

Prosecutors said the wallet received approximately 158,123 USDC from at least 10 addresses used to receive payments for North Korean IT workers and another 54,574 USDT from at least four worker payment addresses. The two dollar-pegged stablecoins had a combined face value of roughly $212,700.

The government argued that the funds were proceeds of a scheme in which North Korean workers obtained overseas IT jobs, concealed their identities and locations, and routed their earnings through cryptocurrency before money was ultimately sent toward North Korea.

U.S. court approves $212,700 North Korea crypto forfeiture

Contreras found that prosecutors had provided enough information to establish how the 0x81c4 wallet was connected to the alleged operation.

The court said the government’s allegations described a wire fraud and money laundering operation involving foreign entities that conducted transactions on behalf of sanctioned individuals in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

For the purpose of the default judgment, the allegations were sufficient to establish that the seized funds constituted or were derived from proceeds traceable to those violations. Contreras therefore entered judgment in favor of the United States for the assets seized from the wallet.

The ruling covered only part of a substantially larger pool of assets targeted by federal prosecutors.

The Justice Department filed its civil forfeiture complaint in June 2025 seeking more than $7.74 million in cryptocurrency and other digital property allegedly generated and laundered through North Korean overseas IT employment schemes.

As crypto.news previously reported, the assets had initially been restrained in connection with an April 2023 indictment of Sim Hyon Sop, a representative of North Korea’s Foreign Trade Bank accused of working with IT workers to move crypto earnings back toward the country.

The complaint covered cryptocurrency, non-fungible tokens and Ethereum Name Service domains. Prosecutors said some of the funds had been frozen or seized while North Korean workers and their associates were attempting to launder the proceeds.

Contreras did not grant forfeiture of the remaining property. The judge found that the government had not adequately identified the other assets in its public forfeiture notice and denied that part of the request without prejudice, leaving prosecutors able to return with another request.

North Korean IT workers allegedly used stablecoins for salaries

The Justice Department has accused North Korea of deploying IT workers around the world to obtain employment at technology and blockchain companies, sometimes using fraudulent identification documents and other methods to hide their nationality and physical location.

Employers who were unaware of their identities then paid the workers for legitimate IT work, often using stablecoins such as USDC and USDT, according to the department.

Prosecutors said the workers used several methods to obscure where their crypto came from before sending funds toward North Korea. The alleged techniques included moving money in smaller amounts, using accounts opened under false identities, swapping tokens, moving assets between blockchains, buying NFTs and mixing employment proceeds with other funds.

U.S. authorities have continued targeting the people and infrastructure accused of supporting those operations. In March, the Treasury Department sanctioned a network that it said helped North Korean workers obtain overseas jobs using false personas and stolen identities before cryptocurrency was used to transfer or launder their earnings.

Investigators have separately traced the employment strategy into crypto development teams. An Ethereum Foundation-backed investigation disclosed in April identified 100 suspected DPRK operatives working within crypto companies, while the Ketman Project alerted 53 teams after examining developer identities and GitHub activity.

Security researcher and MetaMask developer Taylor Monahan said in a separate investigation that North Korean-linked developers had worked inside DeFi projects over several years, with the activity extending back to the early period of decentralized finance.

The risk has continued into 2026. Consensys temporarily halted product releases in July after discovering that a consultant linked to North Korea had gained access to its systems for roughly one month. The company’s investigation found no evidence that assets or data had been stolen or that malicious code had been introduced.

Sim Hyon Sop and Kim Sang Man remain tied to U.S. case

The forfeiture complaint identified Sim and Kim Sang Man as intermediaries who allegedly helped move earnings generated by overseas workers.

Sim served as a representative of North Korea’s Foreign Trade Bank, which has been sanctioned by the United States over its links to the country’s weapons programs. The Treasury Department placed Sim on its Specially Designated Nationals list in April 2023.

According to the Justice Department, North Korean IT workers sent funds to Sim after laundering their earnings. Prosecutors have accused him of participating in schemes involving workers who obtained employment at companies in the United States and elsewhere and of working with over-the-counter cryptocurrency traders to use illicit funds to acquire goods for North Korea.

Kim was sanctioned the following month along with Chinyong, also known as Jinyong IT Cooperation Company. U.S. authorities identify him as the chief executive of Chinyong, which is subordinate to North Korea’s Ministry of Defense and employs delegations of IT workers operating overseas.

Prosecutors said Kim served as an intermediary between those workers and the Foreign Trade Bank by transferring funds from workers to Sim. Chinyong delegations have operated in countries including Russia and Laos, according to the Justice Department.

U.S. authorities have previously linked Kim to crypto transactions involving overseas workers. An earlier investigation found that a suspected North Korean IT worker operating under the alias “Light Fury” transferred more than $300,000 from a public Ethereum Name Service address to Kim.

The Justice Department’s June 2025 complaint said the property targeted for forfeiture consisted of funds generated by North Korean IT workers, including people who had been unknowingly employed by U.S.-based companies, before proceeds were sent to Kim or Sim for the benefit of the North Korean government.

Shinhan Investment Securities has proposed allocating 2% of investment portfolios to digital assets as the traditional 60% stock and 40% bond strategy struggles to provide the diversification investors once expected.

According to Yonhap News Agency, Shinhan Investment Securities senior researcher Park Woo-yeol outlined the allocation during a press briefing at the Korea Exchange in Yeouido, Seoul, on Sept. 8, arguing that stocks and bonds have increasingly moved in the same direction.

The conventional 60/40 portfolio relies partly on bonds cushioning losses when equities decline. Park said that relationship has become less reliable, prompting the securities firm to look at assets with lower correlations to both markets.

Shinhan is now proposing that investors allocate 8% of their portfolios to alternative assets and another 2% to digital assets.

Shinhan proposes 2% digital asset allocation

The securities firm began recommending a 2% digital asset weighting this year after examining the risk-adjusted performance of portfolios that divided a 10% alternative allocation between gold and Bitcoin.

According to Park, the analysis produced relatively favorable results when gold and Bitcoin were divided at an 8-to-2 ratio. Under that model, Bitcoin would account for 2% of the overall portfolio.

The recommendation comes as South Korea works on rules that could give digital assets a larger role within its regulated financial system.

In July, crypto.news previously reported that the government had renewed plans for crypto ETFs, alongside legislation covering stablecoins, tokenized government bonds and other blockchain initiatives. Authorities are preparing the Digital Asset Basic Act and a framework for cross-border stablecoin transactions.

South Korea has been gradually opening other parts of its financial system to digital assets as well. The Ministry of Economy and Finance disclosed plans in July to include digital assets under a new state asset management framework that would replace rules centered largely on conventional property.

Institutional participation has historically faced tighter restrictions. Financial institutions were barred from directly investing in cryptocurrencies under a policy dating back to 2017, while regulators have spent the past several years working through how crypto products can fit within existing securities and investment rules.

Trading hours are changing competition for Korean investors

Park said changes in global ETF trading could create another challenge for South Korea’s securities market.

Nasdaq is working toward extended trading that would eventually keep its market open for 23 hours on weekdays. Such a schedule would allow Asian investors to trade U.S. stocks and ETFs during South Korea’s regular market hours instead of waiting for the U.S. session.

Nasdaq’s plans have already moved through several regulatory and infrastructure steps. In August, the exchange agreed to acquire LeveL Markets, an alternative trading system that reaches more than 2,500 clients and trades more than 7,000 symbols daily.

The deal formed part of Nasdaq’s work around longer trading hours, tokenized securities and digital market infrastructure. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved Nasdaq rules for tokenized securities in March before approving longer trading hours in April.

Park expects the changes to intensify competition for investors once U.S. stocks and ETFs become accessible during Korean market hours.

At the same time, crypto trading platforms have been moving into products traditionally associated with securities markets.

“Stocks, bonds, commodities and ETFs that were traded through securities accounts can now be traded on crypto exchanges,” Park said. “Competition between traditional finance and digital finance platforms has begun.”

Crypto platforms have an additional difference in their operating hours because digital asset markets continue through weekends. Park pointed to the ability to react to geopolitical developments and other events that occur while conventional securities markets are closed.

Crypto exchanges are moving into stock trading

The boundary between the two types of trading platforms has already become less distinct as exchanges roll out tokenized stocks and equity-linked products.

Binance, for example, launched tokenized U.S. stocks in June through bStocks, allowing eligible users to convert supported equities into blockchain-based assets that can trade around the clock. Its initial group included tokenized versions of Nvidia, Tesla, Circle, Micron and Sandisk.

The products are backed 1:1 by underlying securities, according to Binance, and can be transferred to supported self-custody wallets or used in decentralized finance applications.

Kraken has taken a similar approach with xStocks. In July, the exchange began letting eligible users use tokenized stocks and ETFs as collateral for futures and margin positions on Kraken Pro, allowing traders to keep equity exposure while using the assets to support leveraged trades.

The model has continued expanding across international markets. Kraken parent Payward said in July that its xStocks platform had surpassed 500 tokenized assets and $37 billion in transaction volume, with plans to expand beyond U.S. securities into Hong Kong, the U.K., Europe and South Korea, subject to regulatory approvals.

South Korea is separately preparing its domestic capital markets for blockchain-based securities. Hanwha Investment & Securities has reportedly completed a tokenized securities platform supporting Avalanche and Hyperledger Besu ahead of legal changes scheduled for February 2027.

The Financial Services Commission plans to initially permit tokenization of certain funds, bonds, unlisted shares and fractional securities under the new framework.

Single-stock leveraged ETF trading has fallen sharply

While trading platforms are adding new products, Park said one source of recent market volatility has lost much of its influence.

Daily trading volume in single-stock leveraged ETFs averaged roughly 15 trillion won during June and July, according to the researcher. Recent turnover has fallen to between one-tenth and one-twentieth of those levels.

Park said the decline makes a return to the same level of volatility less likely for the time being.

He did not interpret the lower trading volume as evidence that existing investors had exited the market. Individual investors accounted for much of the net buying in those products, and Park said they appeared to be holding positions while waiting for prices to rebound instead of actively trading during the lower-volatility period.

For September, Park named the U.S. Dow Jones dividend index as his preferred ETF index.

Unlike South Korean dividend stocks, U.S. dividend stocks carry relatively high weightings in energy, healthcare and consumer staples, he said. Park argued that composition could offer an advantage in an environment of elevated geopolitical risk and market volatility.

Bitcoin price fell below $79,000 on Sept. 8 as weakening capital flows and nearby liquidation clusters increased the risk of a deeper pullback toward $76,000.

Bitcoin price falls below $79,000

According to data from crypto.news, Bitcoin (BTC) price traded at approximately $78,450 at the time of writing, down around 1% over the previous 24 hours. The decline followed another failed attempt to extend above $80,000, with sellers defending the broader $81,000–$82,000 resistance zone.

The 4-hour chart shows that BTC reached an intraday high near $78,995 before falling as low as $78,281. Price remained slightly above the Supertrend level at $78,204, making the indicator an immediate test for buyers.

Bitcoin’s Chaikin Money Flow reading fell to -0.10 on the same timeframe. A negative CMF indicates that more capital is leaving the asset than entering it, supporting the loss of short-term momentum.

The pullback also turned the former $79,500 support area into resistance, according to analyst Crypto with Haris B. The analyst said the $78,000 level was showing signs of weakness and identified $76,000 as the next local target if that floor fails.

Daily trend remains bullish above key moving averages

Despite the short-term decline, Bitcoin continued to trade above all four moving averages shown on the daily chart. The 20-day simple moving average stood at $78,440, placing BTC almost directly on its nearest dynamic support.

The 50-day SMA was near $69,995, while the 200-day SMA and 100-day SMA stood at approximately $69,902 and $66,622, respectively. The arrangement places the shorter average above the longer averages, a structure normally associated with a broader uptrend.

Bitcoin’s average directional index was 48.35. An ADX reading above 25 points to a strong underlying trend, although the indicator does not determine whether that trend will move upward or downward.

The daily chart also shows that BTC has consolidated between roughly $76,000 and $82,300 since its sharp August advance. A break from either side of that range may decide whether the rally continues or develops into a wider correction.

Dami-Defi described the current decline as a pullback within an uptrend because BTC remained above a rising 4-hour trendline. According to the analyst, a 4-hour close below that trendline would weaken the setup, while a break above $81,000–$82,000 could restart the advance.

Bitcoin liquidation map puts $78K in focus

CoinGlass’ three-day Bitcoin liquidation heatmap shows a bright concentration of leveraged positions close to $78,000. The price was approaching that liquidity band at the time captured by the chart, making it the most immediate downside area to watch.

A decline through the cluster could trigger forced closures of leveraged long positions and expose lower liquidity around $77,500. Beneath that zone, the supplied charts place the next important technical support near $76,000.

Larger liquidation concentrations sit above the market. The strongest visible band is around $80,500–$80,700, with additional liquidity between $81,000 and $82,000.

Price can move toward areas holding large numbers of leveraged positions, although a heatmap does not predict which cluster will be reached first. Bitcoin therefore remains caught between nearby long liquidations around $78,000 and a larger pool of short liquidations above $80,500.

A recovery above $79,500 would give buyers another opportunity to target the upper clusters. Failure to reclaim that level would keep pressure on the Supertrend and the $78,000 floor.

US jobs data raises pressure before the Fed meeting

The latest decline came as US investors reassessed the interest-rate outlook following stronger labor data. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that nonfarm payrolls increased by 162,000 in August, compared with an average monthly gain of 31,000 over the previous 12 months.

The unemployment rate remained at 4.1%. A resilient labor market can give the Federal Reserve more room to keep borrowing costs elevated, a backdrop that can weigh on non-yielding assets such as Bitcoin.

Inflation also remained above the Fed’s 2% objective. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the PCE price index rose 3.7% year over year in July. August PCE figures have not yet been released and are scheduled for Sept. 30.

Interest-rate traders were assigning an elevated probability to a rate increase at the September meeting, according to CME FedWatch. The Federal Reserve’s next policy meeting is scheduled for Sept. 15–16.

Bitcoin faces $76K risk if $78K breaks

Bitcoin’s immediate outlook depends on whether buyers can protect the $78,000–$78,200 area. Holding that zone would preserve the 4-hour Supertrend and leave room for a recovery toward $79,500, followed by $80,600 and $82,000.

A decisive 4-hour close below $78,000 would weaken the higher-low structure identified by Dami-Defi. Such a move could send BTC toward $77,000 and $76,000, where the recent range offers the next visible support.

The daily moving averages still support the broader bullish case, but negative CMF and resistance at $79,500 favor caution in the near term. A close above $82,300 would invalidate the current range and confirm a fresh breakout, while a loss of $76,000 would raise the risk of a wider retracement.

Bitcoin has become one of the world’s largest pools of digital capital, yet only a small fraction participates in onchain financial activity.

Other crypto ecosystems built large economies around staking, lending and decentralized trading. Bitcoin, by comparison, still lacks a universally accepted home where holders can put BTC to work without taking on custody, bridge or foreign-chain risks.

That is the problem Bitcoin-native finance is trying to solve.

The term describes a financial system built around Bitcoin as the productive asset, with services such as staking, lending, borrowing and trading anchored to Bitcoin rather than requiring holders to move their wealth into another blockchain economy. Stacks is pursuing that model through a 2026 roadmap built around three connected stages: attract Bitcoin capital with self-custodial yield, scale the infrastructure needed to support greater activity, then expand the financial applications available to that capital.

The official roadmap is currently presented as a 2026 plan rather than a formal roadmap extending through 2030. Its direction, however, describes a longer-term effort to build lending, trading, programmable capital and other financial services around Bitcoin. The central question for the coming years is whether Stacks can turn that roadmap into the ecosystem where BTC holders move from passive ownership to active financial use.

Bitcoin Staking could become the entry point for idle BTC

Many Bitcoin projects have tried to make BTC productive, but each approach introduces different trade-offs.

Core already offers self-custodial Bitcoin staking using Bitcoin’s CheckLockTimeVerify timelocks, but rewards are paid in CORE. Babylon also keeps staked BTC native to Bitcoin, but its security model includes slashing, meaning delegated BTC can face penalties if protocol security conditions are violated.

Stacks is proposing a different combination. Under its Bitcoin Staking design, participants create a protocol bond by locking BTC on Bitcoin Layer 1 and pairing it with STX worth approximately 5% of the BTC position. The BTC remains under the participant’s keys, while the paired STX secures access to staking capacity. The current target yield is approximately 3% annualized and paid in Bitcoin.

The source of that yield is Proof of Transfer, or PoX, the consensus mechanism Stacks has operated since January 2021. Stacks miners commit BTC as they compete to produce blocks and receive STX rewards. The BTC committed by miners then flows to eligible participants. Stacks says the mechanism has distributed more than 4,200 BTC since launch.

That gives the planned product an economic structure different from staking systems funded entirely through new token issuance. The reward pool comes from BTC spent by miners as part of Stacks block production rather than from creating a new reward token or lending participants’ Bitcoin to borrowers.

The product is not yet established at scale. As of July 16, 2026, PoX-5 was operating on a private testnet with integration partners testing bonding, reward distribution and exits ahead of a public testnet and potential mainnet activation. Mainnet still depends on the Stacks governance process and successful testing.

That distinction matters. Bitcoin Staking could become the top of the Stacks capital funnel, but the thesis remains dependent on execution.

The roadmap moves from capital to infrastructure and finance

Attracting BTC is only the first step. A Bitcoin-native financial system also needs enough performance, liquidity and application depth to give holders reasons to keep using their capital after earning an initial yield.

The Stacks roadmap organizes that process into three phases. Bitcoin Staking anchors capital. Infrastructure improvements prepare the network for greater DeFi and automated activity. The final phase expands Bitcoin-native finance across lending, trading and programmable capital. The workstreams are progressing concurrently rather than waiting for each previous phase to finish.

On performance, Stacks core developers are targeting a 100-fold improvement in throughput through efforts including Clarity Wasm. The roadmap also calls for continued core improvements and optimization of the sBTC bridge. Stacks has separately set a goal of supporting up to 10,000 active AI agents as programmable financial activity grows.

The longer-term financial layer includes self-custodial Bitcoin lending, trading, perpetual markets and programmable BTC that software agents can use. The roadmap also explores allowing sBTC to pay transaction fees, which could reduce the need for users or automated agents to acquire a separate gas asset before interacting with applications.

For institutions and large Bitcoin holders, that combination matters because yield alone may not justify moving substantial capital into a new financial environment.

StackingDAO, Bitflow, Zest and Hermetica build the next layer

The wider Stacks ecosystem is already assembling several of the financial primitives needed to move BTC beyond a single staking product.

StackingDAO provides the liquid staking layer. It currently operates liquid Stacking products for STX and has outlined plans for a Bitcoin liquid staking token as Bitcoin Staking develops. A BTC liquid staking token, or BTC LST, would represent an underlying yield-producing Bitcoin position while remaining usable elsewhere in DeFi.

The role is comparable in structure to the function liquid staking tokens serve in Ethereum’s DeFi economy. Without a liquid representation, staked capital remains harder to use elsewhere. With one, the same economic position can potentially provide liquidity, serve as collateral or participate in additional financial strategies.

Bitflow supplies another necessary piece: markets where Bitcoin-linked assets can trade and find liquidity.

The protocol operates a decentralized exchange and aggregator on Stacks and has introduced HODLMM, a concentrated-liquidity engine designed for more capital-efficient markets. A future BTC LST would need liquid trading venues to maintain an effective market and provide holders with practical entry and exit routes.

Zest Protocol adds credit markets. Its existing Stacks market allows users to lend Bitcoin-linked assets and borrow against collateral, while its planned Bitcoin Collateral Vaults aim to let users borrow stablecoins against BTC without moving their Bitcoin off Layer 1. Zest says those vaults are scheduled to launch in 2026 and are designed around self-custodial Bitcoin collateral rather than a conventional wrapped-BTC structure.

Hermetica provides yield products and a Bitcoin-linked monetary layer through hBTC and USDh. The hBTC vault deploys BTC exposure into onchain strategies including lending, staking and basis strategies, with realized profits accounted for in Bitcoin terms. Hermetica describes the product as redeemable for native BTC, while its current documentation shows that withdrawals remain subject to protocol cooldowns and Bitcoin settlement times.

Its USDh product provides a Bitcoin-backed synthetic dollar that can serve as a stable asset within the same financial environment. Hermetica’s hBTC documentation describes a strategy that can use BTC-linked collateral in lending markets and deploy borrowed stablecoins into additional yield opportunities, connecting Bitcoin collateral, credit and stable liquidity within one system.

Together, these protocols illustrate what comes after Bitcoin Staking.

From Bitcoin yield to a Bitcoin-native financial economy

Ethereum and Solana showed how staking can become more than a standalone yield product. Once users begin earning on an asset, demand can develop for liquid staking, collateral markets, decentralized exchanges and structured strategies that make the staked capital more useful.

Stacks is attempting to build a similar progression around Bitcoin without simply copying another chain’s security and custody model.

Its strategy starts with a product designed to keep BTC on Bitcoin L1 while generating BTC-denominated rewards. The roadmap then connects that capital to faster infrastructure and an ecosystem spanning liquid staking, trading, credit and yield products.

Bitcoin-native finance will not be defined by one staking product. It will be defined by whether Bitcoin can function as productive capital across staking, lending, liquidity and programmable applications without forcing holders to abandon the properties that made them choose Bitcoin in the first place.

Stacks is building toward that outcome. Bitcoin Staking is intended to open the door. The ecosystem developing behind it will determine how far the capital travels once it enters.

FAQ

Ethereum price traded below $2,500 on Sept. 8 as weak short-term momentum and uncertainty over the Federal Reserve’s next move kept the asset inside a narrow range.

Ethereum price action today

According to data from crypto.news, Ethereum (ETH) price traded at approximately $2,475 at the time of writing, down 0.7% over the previous 24 hours. The asset recorded a daily high of $2,507.99 and a low of $2,463 on the daily chart.

The latest decline kept ETH below the $2,500 psychological level, which has repeatedly limited recovery attempts since the start of September. Buyers briefly pushed the price to $2,500 during the latest 4-hour session, but the move lost strength before reaching the upper end of its recent range.

Ethereum has largely traded between $2,450 and $2,550 since Sept. 3. Repeated moves through the middle of the range have failed to produce a sustained trend, leaving both breakout and breakdown attempts vulnerable to reversals.

Crypto trader Daan Crypto Trades described the movement as typical of an illiquid holiday weekend. He expected the return of regular market activity to help the market choose a direction after several days of uneven price action.

Fed uncertainty keeps Ethereum below $2,500

Stronger-than-expected U.S. employment data added pressure to Ethereum and other risk assets. The U.S. economy added 162,000 jobs in August, compared with expectations of about 53,000, while unemployment remained at 4.1%.

The report raised market expectations that the Federal Reserve could increase interest rates at its September meeting. Traders assigned roughly a 60% probability to a rate hike, according to market pricing cited by Reuters.

Higher interest rates can reduce demand for volatile assets because investors can earn greater returns from government bonds and other lower-risk instruments. The Fed is scheduled to announce its next policy decision on Sept. 16.

Rising oil prices have added another source of uncertainty for U.S. investors. Brent crude climbed to $98.66 per barrel on Sept. 8 as conflict in the Middle East raised concerns about energy supplies and inflation, Reuters reported.

Markets will now watch the U.S. Producer Price Index on Thursday and the Consumer Price Index on Friday. Stronger inflation readings could support expectations of tighter monetary policy, while softer figures may ease some of the pressure on Ethereum.

Ethereum indicators point to range-bound trading

The 4-hour Ethereum chart shows the price trading below the Bollinger Band midpoint at $2,484.76. The middle band is the first level buyers need to recover before challenging the upper band at $2,516.64.

A 4-hour close above $2,517 could improve the short-term setup and expose the $2,540–$2,550 resistance area. Ethereum has struggled to hold above that zone during recent recovery attempts, making it an important barrier for a larger breakout.

The lower Bollinger Band rests at $2,452.87 and provides the nearest technical support. A move toward the lower band would keep ETH within its existing range, but a decisive close below it could open a drop toward $2,400.

The Average Directional Index stands at 11.1 on the 4-hour chart. An ADX reading below 20 usually reflects a weak trend, consistent with the repeated reversals and limited follow-through visible since late August.

The daily chart remains more constructive. Ethereum is trading above the Supertrend support at $2,318.72, while the Awesome Oscillator remains positive at 256.05. However, the oscillator’s shrinking bars show that bullish momentum has weakened since the August rally.

Liquidation levels frame Ethereum’s next move

The three-day CoinGlass liquidation heatmap shows a dense liquidity cluster between approximately $2,445 and $2,460. The concentration places leveraged long positions near the lower boundary of Ethereum’s current range.

A breakdown below $2,450 could trigger long liquidations and accelerate a move toward $2,400. CoinGlass data showed that about $29 million in Ethereum futures positions had already been liquidated over the previous 24 hours, while ETH open interest stood near $33.3 billion.

Liquidity is also concentrated above the market. The nearest upper clusters appear around $2,515–$2,520, followed by a larger band near $2,540–$2,550. A recovery through $2,500 could therefore trigger short liquidations and pull the price toward those levels.

The position of the clusters leaves ETH between two nearby liquidity targets. The $2,450 area represents the immediate downside risk, while $2,515 and $2,550 form the main upside objectives.

Analysts watch $2,400 for the bullish structure

Team Lambo Charts said Ethereum’s consolidation above $2,400 allows liquidity to build without damaging the broader bullish structure. The analyst identified $3,000 as the next major upside target if ETH begins another expansion phase.

A momentum-backed break above $3,000 could place $3,700 in view, according to the analyst. However, that longer-term scenario depends on Ethereum continuing to hold $2,400 and clearing the resistance that has formed near $2,550.

In the short term, the chart remains neutral while ETH trades between $2,450 and $2,517. A 4-hour close above the upper Bollinger Band would favor a move toward $2,550, while a loss below $2,450 would increase the risk of a liquidation-driven decline toward $2,400.