Key takeaways

• Pi Network trades at $0.09 after recording three consecutive bullish daily closes earlier this week.
• Expanded US Treasury bond buybacks have improved risk appetite and pushed Bitcoin toward $70,000, but PI continues to underperform.
• The token must break above the psychological $0.1000 level and the 50% Fibonacci retracement at $0.1022 to extend its recovery.

Pi Network (PI) trades around $0.090 on Thursday, preserving its three-day recovery from earlier in the week but continuing to lag behind the broader cryptocurrency market.

Renewed risk appetite has pushed Bitcoin above $71,000 after the US Treasury expanded its longer-term securities buyback operations. 

However, PI has failed to attract enough buying pressure to produce a comparable rally.

The token must overcome the psychological $0.1000 threshold to strengthen its recovery and support a more sustained bullish move.

Treasury buybacks lift crypto sentiment

The US Treasury announced that it would at least double the maximum size of certain liquidity-support buyback operations from $2 billion to $4 billion per transaction.

The initiative is intended to support liquidity in the longer-dated Treasury market and address concerns surrounding rising borrowing costs.

Improving bond-market liquidity and easing long-term yields have strengthened investor confidence in higher-risk assets, including cryptocurrencies.

Bitcoin has benefited substantially from the shift in sentiment, advancing toward $70,000 alongside sharp gains across several major altcoins.

Pi Network, however, remains among the market’s notable underperformers. Derivatives data indicates a modest improvement in speculative interest around PI, but retail demand remains relatively weak.

CoinAnk data shows that PI futures Open Interest increased to $9.30 million from $8.82 million the previous day. Open Interest measures the total value of outstanding derivatives contracts and typically rises when traders establish new positions.

Despite the daily increase, the figure remains considerably below the July 15 peak of $12.14 million.

The subdued level suggests that traders remain hesitant to commit substantial capital to PI, even as improving market conditions encourage risk-taking elsewhere in the cryptocurrency sector.

Without a more substantial increase in participation, Pi Network may struggle to keep pace with the broader market recovery.

Technical outlook: Can PI rebound toward $0.10?

Pi Network trades near $0.090 on Thursday, maintaining a neutral short-term outlook.

The token recorded three consecutive bullish daily closes earlier this week, producing a cumulative gain of approximately 4%.

PI has also moved above the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement at $0.0839, measured from the downswing between $0.1341 and $0.0703.

Holding above this level preserves the possibility of an extended recovery. However, PI still faces significant resistance around the psychological $0.1000 mark.

The token’s immediate technical resistance sits at the 50% Fibonacci retracement level of $0.1022.

A decisive daily close above the $0.1000-to-$0.1022 zone could strengthen bullish momentum and attract additional retail participation.

Such a move would also suggest that PI is beginning to capitalize on the improving sentiment across the broader cryptocurrency market.

Failure to overcome this resistance zone could keep the token confined to its current range and increase the likelihood of renewed selling pressure.

PI’s daily momentum indicators reflect a cautious recovery rather than a decisive bullish reversal.

The Relative Strength Index is hovering near the neutral level of 50, indicating that neither buyers nor sellers have established clear control.

Meanwhile, the Moving Average Convergence Divergence indicator remains slightly above its signal line, while its bullish histogram gradually expands. This configuration points to mild upside momentum, but the signal remains too weak to confirm a sustained rally.

A stronger RSI move above 50, accompanied by further MACD expansion and rising Open Interest, would improve PI’s near-term outlook.

The 78.6% Fibonacci retracement at $0.0839 remains PI’s primary support level.

Buyers must defend this area to preserve the current recovery structure. A decisive break below $0.0839 could invalidate the latest rebound and expose the swing low at $0.0703.

Conversely, holding above $0.0839 while building momentum toward $0.1000 would keep the bullish recovery scenario intact.

GnosisDAO approved Gnosis Chain’s transition from a standalone layer-1 network to a ZK-proven Ethereum Economic Zone (EEZ) rollup.

GIP-153 received 123,158 GNO in support, 115 against and 151 abstaining across 54 voters, Gnosis Chain said in an X post. Turnout reached 123,425 GNO, exceeding the 75,000 quorum.

Under the proposal, Gnosis Chain’s validator set would be retired and the network would settle transactions on Ethereum, making Gnosis Chain a layer-2 (L2) that relies on Ethereum’s validators for settlement.

An initial launch is targeted for late 2026 or early 2027, subject to the required EEZ technology being ready.

The update would enable Gnosis Chain-native smart contracts to call Ethereum and use the result in the same transaction, giving it access to Ethereum mainnet assets and liquidity in an environment “optimized” for consumers, a capability the proposal says is not currently available on existing L2s.

Gnosis Chain to become first production EEZ instance

The EEZ is a framework for building Ethereum-aligned rollups, developed by Gnosis and ZisK, with funding from the Ethereum Foundation.

The initiative aims to unify Ethereum’s fragmented L2 ecosystem by enabling smart contracts across different rollups to execute synchronously without relying on bridges. It targets one of Ethereum’s main scaling trade-offs: improved throughput from dozens of L2 networks, which separate liquidity, infrastructure, and user activity across separate blockchains.

Gnosis Chain would become its first deployed instance while retaining its existing applications, balances and xDAI gas token.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin previously raised concerns about the centralized sequencers and trusted bridging mechanisms as potential weak points in the design of some L2 networks. “The original vision of L2s and their role in Ethereum no longer makes sense, and we need a new path,” Buterin wrote in a Feb. 3 X post. 

According to data from L2Beat, 22 Ethereum rollups currently secure $27.82 billion. Including validiums, optimiums and other scaling networks, the platform tracks $34.88 billion in total value secured.

Related: Ripple raises $275M for US prime brokerage to meet institutional demand

EEZ could reduce reliance on vulnerable infrastructure: Standard Chartered

EEZ could reduce reliance on blockchain bridges and increase activity within the Ethereum ecosystem, according to Geoffrey Kendrick, global head of digital assets research at Standard Chartered. 

“The EEZ will have the benefit of reducing the need for bridges (where hacks tend to occur) and increasing the usability of assets in EVM chains,” he wrote in a May 28 report shared with Cointelegraph.

“Both of these are likely to lead to greater activity in the Ethereum ecosystem.” 

Kendrick said the EEZ could create greater composability between assets, allowing smart contracts on different participating networks to interact within the same transaction.

Magazine: Ethereum’s EEZ could pull other blockchains into its orbit

HTX denied authorizing a series of disputed cryptocurrency microtransfers on Aug. 20 after some users alleged that funds originating from HTX-linked addresses caused compliance restrictions at Kraken and other exchanges.

An HTX representative using the @HTX_Molly account said an internal review found no activity from official company accounts. The representative suggested that affected users could have initiated transfers independently while trying to protest or test Kraken’s restrictions.

The same representative claimed that funds frozen at Kraken included cases worth as much as $4.2 million. HTX did not publish account records, transaction hashes or communications from Kraken supporting that figure. Kraken has not publicly confirmed the alleged maximum.

HTX says it found no official transfer activity

The reports began after users identified small unsolicited USDT transfers from addresses labeled as connected to HTX. Some commentators described the transfers as address poisoning intended to trigger compliance systems at other platforms.

HTX said its internal checks found no evidence that an official account initiated a coordinated campaign. Justin Sun separately called reports that HTX deliberately sent the transfers “made up,” while the exchange said it was examining address labels and the transfers’ sources.

Available onchain reporting has not established who controlled every sending address. One community review found that a batch of 7.5 USDT transfers from an HTX-labeled hot wallet went to addresses attributed to Kraken.

Wallet labels alone do not prove that HTX authorized a transfer. Exchange deposit addresses, payment processors, intermediaries and user-controlled withdrawal activity can complicate attribution. Public transaction hashes would be needed to test the findings independently.

As crypto.news previously reported, HTX’s initial investigation found no verified connection between disputed transfers and subsequent account freezes. The exchange has not released a complete address list or final investigation report.

Kraken confirms restrictions tied to U.K. sanctions

Kraken has confirmed a broader policy of restricting transfers associated with Huobi or HTX. The exchange said U.K. government sanctions require it to restrict funds transferred from Huobi into Kraken customer accounts.

Kraken has not said that every incoming transfer from an HTX-labeled address produces a full account freeze. It has also not confirmed that the recent microtransfers caused specific customer restrictions.

The policy followed the U.K.’s May 26 designation of Huobi Global S.A. under its Russia sanctions regime. The government said it had reasonable grounds to suspect that the company was involved in making funds or economic resources available to entities in Russia’s financial sector.

HTX disputed the designation’s application to its exchange. In its May statement, HTX argued that Huobi Global S.A. was distinct from the online platform and said its operations remained unaffected.

The U.K. Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation rejected that distinction. Its official guidance says the designation applies to the HTX exchange because OFSI considers Huobi Global to own it under U.K. sanctions rules.

Kraken’s restrictions therefore have a confirmed regulatory basis. Whether each affected customer’s transaction legally requires an extended freeze depends on the ownership, source, timing and sanctions exposure involved in that case.

The $4.2 million claim remains unverified

The @HTX_Molly representative said HTX had researched Kraken restrictions during the previous two days and found that some users remained unable to access funds. The representative cited $4.2 million as the highest known amount.

No evidence accompanying the statement established whether that amount belonged to one account, several linked accounts or a transfer under a specific legal hold. It is also unclear whether the restriction followed the recent microtransfers or earlier direct dealings with HTX.

The representative said HTX had created a group for affected Kraken customers to collect cases and seek the release of funds. HTX characterized those efforts as voluntary user activity rather than exchange-directed transfers.

Kraken advises restricted customers to respond to requests for documentation and contact its support team. The exchange may impose restrictions for sanctions compliance, account security, payment reversals or other reviews. These categories are separate from temporary withdrawal holds routinely applied after certain purchases or account changes.

The incident resembles compliance poisoning

Classic address poisoning usually involves sending small transfers from lookalike addresses. The attacker hopes a victim will later copy the fraudulent address from their transaction history and send funds to it.

The reported HTX transfers present a different scenario. The alleged objective would be to associate a recipient with a sanctioned or compliance-sensitive address, potentially triggering automated screening. “Compliance poisoning” is therefore a more precise description if intentional conduct is eventually established.

The current evidence does not establish intent. Receiving an unsolicited transfer also does not, by itself, show that a recipient knowingly dealt with a sanctioned entity.

HTX’s next step is to publish its final review, including verified sending addresses and transaction hashes. Kraken may also clarify how it evaluates unsolicited transfers and what documentation affected users need to restore access.

Until then, the official record supports three narrower findings: the U.K. sanctions apply to HTX, Kraken restricts affected transfers, and HTX denies authorizing the disputed microtransactions. The alleged $4.2 million freeze and any coordinated poisoning campaign remain unverified claims.

Blueprint Finance has completed a strategic funding round led by Polychain Capital to expand Concrete, its on-chain vault infrastructure for institutions, protocols, and asset managers.

Blueprint Finance said on Aug. 19 that Bullish, Keyrock, BitGo, FalconX, G-20, Flowdesk, JPEG Trading, Sentient Capital, Andes and 2Square also participated in the round. The company did not disclose the amount raised or its valuation.

The financing will support further development of Concrete, which Blueprint describes as full-stack infrastructure for creating and managing vaults that deploy capital across on-chain strategies. Its system combines execution, accounting, risk controls, rebalancing and integrations with other protocols within the same vault architecture.

For institutions and asset managers, Blueprint said the structure is intended to reduce the operational work involved in managing strategies across separate DeFi protocols. The company has also been working with asset issuers, networks and institutional allocators on vaults that can support on-chain yield products and provide liquidity infrastructure.

Blueprint Finance funding will support Concrete’s vault infrastructure

Concrete is being developed around vaults that function as programmable capital allocation systems, allowing strategy rules and operational controls to be packaged within an on-chain product.

Blueprint said professional allocators require auditable accounting, defined operational permissions, scalable execution and transparent risk controls alongside access to DeFi markets. The company is positioning Concrete as the infrastructure connecting those requirements with on-chain execution.

“DeFi is moving beyond the era where capital allocation was defined by chasing the highest advertised yield,” Blueprint Finance CEO and co-founder Nic Roberts-Huntley said.

Roberts-Huntley said professional allocators increasingly need “controls, transparency, automation, and risk management” while retaining the features available through on-chain markets. He said the latest investor group brings experience from different parts of the digital asset industry as Blueprint expands Concrete.

Alongside its vault infrastructure, Blueprint is developing AssetCX and concUSD as additional products within the Concrete ecosystem. According to the company, the products are intended to extend Concrete into the development of new on-chain assets, markets and financial products.

The investor list also puts several companies involved in institutional crypto infrastructure behind the project. BitGo operates custody and trading infrastructure, while FalconX, Keyrock and Flowdesk have businesses spanning institutional trading, liquidity and market making.

Institutional DeFi access has added more controls

BitGo, one of the participants in Blueprint’s round, has expanded its own infrastructure for institutions seeking access to DeFi markets.

In June, crypto.news reported that BitGo had opened institutional DeFi access to Aave, Spark and Tesseract through an integration with Narval. Eligible institutions can interact with the protocols while their assets remain in wallets within BitGo Bank & Trust’s qualified custody environment.

Narval checks transaction details, approved smart contracts and internal policy rules before BitGo authorizes wallet signing requests. The setup allows institutional clients to define which protocols, addresses and transaction types can be used before assets interact with supported applications.

BitGo has continued building institutional infrastructure since then. On Aug. 3, the company launched Link, a dashboard that gives institutions a consolidated view of exchange balances, transfers, permissions and settlement across connected trading venues. The platform includes outside exchange accounts alongside assets held at BitGo and calculates buying power across connected venues.

The company also formed an institutional staking partnership with HashKey Cloud in July. Under the arrangement, HashKey Cloud provides non-custodial staking services to BitGo’s institutional clients, adding another service alongside its custody and DeFi infrastructure.

For Blueprint, Roberts-Huntley said the mix of companies in the strategic round was important because the investors operate across several parts of the digital asset market.

“Who participated in this round is as important to us as the capital itself,” he said.

DeFi vault products have expanded in 2026

Other crypto companies have also moved into managed vault infrastructure this year as firms package lending, yield and tokenized asset strategies into products that can be accessed through a single interface.

Wintermute entered the sector on May 19 when it launched the Armitage vault, its first direct move into DeFi vault curation. The trading firm said Armitage was designed to accept collateral types that competing curators may consider too complex or illiquid.

Built around Morpho’s vault model, the product allows an independent curator to determine strategy, collateral requirements and risk parameters without taking custody of depositor funds. Wintermute had not disclosed Armitage’s initial assets under management, targeted annual percentage yields or the specific collateral it planned to accept when the product was launched.

The move extended Wintermute’s operations from market making and liquidity provision into managed on-chain yield infrastructure. Bitwise had entered Morpho’s curator market earlier in 2026 with a product targeting institutional USDC depositors through overcollateralized lending markets.

Tokenized real-world assets have provided another use case for vault infrastructure.

On June 4, Plume and Ether.fi launched a $100 million RWA vault that gives Ether.fi users access to tokenized yield products from within its application. Ether.fi provided an exclusive $100 million allocation to the vault.

Plume said the underlying strategies included institutional assets such as overcollateralized credit pools, collateralized loan obligations and bond exchange-traded funds. Ether.fi said the product was designed for users seeking yield strategies with institutional risk controls and less direct exposure to conventional DeFi strategies.

Vault infrastructure is reaching crypto wallets

Distribution of tokenized yield products has also moved into crypto wallets, giving vault providers another route to reach users without requiring them to navigate individual protocols.

In July, Binance Wallet added Plume’s nBASIS vault, providing access to tokenized products tied to Bitwise and Invesco from within the wallet. The vault connects users with Bitwise’s USCC cash-and-carry fund and Invesco’s USTB tokenized Treasury product.

Plume had previously expanded its vault distribution through Ether.fi and Bybit, creating several access points for tokenized real-world asset yield. Its Binance Wallet integration placed Treasury and market-neutral strategies inside an interface already used for managing crypto assets.

Concrete is focused on the infrastructure used to construct and operate such on-chain vaults. Blueprint said its architecture combines automated execution, accounting, risk controls and quantitative strategy tooling for institutions, protocols, asset issuers and other capital allocators.

Roberts-Huntley said the companies participating in Blueprint’s financing bring experience across liquidity, execution, custody and distribution. Polychain Capital led the round, with Bullish, Keyrock, BitGo, FalconX, G-20, Flowdesk, JPEG Trading, Sentient Capital, Andes and 2Square participating.

Nexo has begun offering regulated, crypto-backed credit lines to eligible customers in Australia, positioning the service as a way to access liquidity without selling digital assets. The company said the rollout follows its registration as a credit representative under Australia’s National Consumer Credit Protection Act.

In an announcement shared with Cointelegraph on Tuesday, Nexo described credit lines that let borrowers take Australian dollars or stablecoins, while posting cryptocurrency collateral. The firm said payouts are typically available within 24 hours and that the products come with flexible repayment structures, no fixed term, and no origination fees.

Key takeaways

• Nexo Australia launched crypto-backed credit lines after becoming a credit representative under Australia’s National Consumer Credit Protection Act.
• Eligible customers can borrow either Australian dollars or stablecoins using cryptocurrency collateral, avoiding asset sales.
• Availability is generally within 24 hours, with flexible repayments and no fixed term or origination fees.
• Interest rates are described as ranging from 0.9% to 21.9%, tied to the selected credit line and the customer’s loyalty tier.
• Nexo cautioned that borrowing against digital assets involves margin-call and liquidation risks if collateral value declines.

What Nexo’s Australia launch covers

According to Nexo, the new credit lines are designed for clients who want to unlock value from their holdings without liquidating them. Borrowers can choose between taking funds in Australian dollars or in stablecoins, with their cryptocurrency acting as collateral.

The firm also said there are two variants—Smart and Standard credit lines. Peter Stanhope, general manager at Nexo Australia, told Cointelegraph that the main differences are in interest rates, which assets can be used as collateral, and how collateral is managed when a borrower’s loan-to-value ratio rises.

Rates, repayment terms, and product differences

Nexo said the credit lines generally have no fixed term and include flexible repayment options, alongside “no origination fees.” It also provided a wide interest-rate range—0.9% to 21.9%—depending on both the particular credit line and the customer’s loyalty tier.

While Nexo did not break down the full pricing schedule in the announcement, its explanation of Smart versus Standard credits focused on practical risk mechanics: the way collateral is handled as leverage increases. That matters for borrowers because crypto markets can move quickly, and changes in collateral value can directly affect whether a margin call is triggered.

Collateral risk: margin calls and possible liquidation

Nexo stressed that borrowing against digital assets carries built-in downside protections for the lender—along with potential losses for the borrower. In its statement, the company said credit products involve margin-call and liquidation risks. If the value of posted collateral falls, clients could lose some or all of their collateral.

For users, this highlights a key trade-off of crypto-backed lending: liquidity is obtained without selling, but the loan structure effectively subjects collateral to price volatility. Borrowers considering the service will need to understand how the loan-to-value ratio is calculated and what thresholds prompt additional collateral demands or liquidation events.

Regulatory milestone and compliance positioning in Australia

Nexo’s move is described as a regulatory milestone in a market where consumer credit rules have been a central theme. The company said its Australian entity is registered with AUSTRAC as a virtual asset service provider and that it is a member of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). These details place the firm within Australia’s broader compliance and dispute-resolution frameworks.

The launch also arrives after another notable step by a competitor earlier in the decade of Australia’s evolving crypto regulation. In May 2026, Block Earner became the first crypto loans company in Australia to secure its own Australian Credit License from ASIC, according to coverage Cointelegraph previously published here.

That comparison underscores an important distinction in how credit is being structured and authorized across the industry. Nexo’s approach hinges on being a credit representative under Australia’s consumer credit framework, while Block Earner’s earlier milestone involved obtaining a credit license from ASIC. For borrowers, the practical difference can come down to how lending activities are authorized and supervised, and what protections apply.

Why this matters for borrowers and the broader market

Crypto-backed loans have long appealed to users who want to maintain exposure to digital assets while accessing cash for spending or strategy changes. Nexo’s Australian rollout is notable because it frames that familiar model inside a regulated consumer credit pathway, potentially lowering friction for mainstream borrowers who want clearer standards for credit conduct and complaint handling.

At the same time, Nexo’s own warnings make clear that regulated access does not eliminate the core economic risk of lending against volatile collateral. The most consequential factor for customers will remain leverage management—how often and how quickly margin calls could be triggered as market prices change.

Investors and borrowers watching Australia’s credit market should pay attention to how these products perform during periods of volatility—especially around loan-to-value monitoring and the handling of margin events—as well as how other providers navigate the licensing versus credit-representative routes under Australia’s consumer credit regime.