Bitcoin mined in 2010 moved from long-dormant addresses after more than 16 years, reigniting speculation over a possible link to Satoshi Nakamoto.

Twelve addresses holding a combined 600 Bitcoin (BTC), worth about $48 million, moved the coins on Saturday after more than 16 years of dormancy, according to onchain data reviewed by Cointelegraph.

Whale Alert, a blockchain transaction tracking platform, said the 600 BTC came from rewards mined across 12 Bitcoin blocks and that its research found no connection to Nakamoto.

“None of the blocks can be connected to Satoshi based on our research,” a spokesperson for Whale Alert told Cointelegraph, tempering speculation around the origins of coins mined while Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator was still active.

Whale Alert traces all 12 mining block rewards

Whale Alert traced all 12 rewards to Bitcoin blocks mined in March 2010, when each block paid a 50 BTC block subsidy. The subsidy has since been cut in half four times, most recently in April 2024, when it fell from 6.25 BTC to the current 3.125 BTC per block.

The findings expand on Whale Alert’s earlier analysis of seven of the rewards. It said in an X post on Sunday that those seven originated from blocks it had determined were not mined by Nakamoto.

The mining blocks and addresses for the 12 dormant Bitcoin rewards. Source: Whale Alert

Lookonchain, an onchain analytics platform, had also initially identified seven miner wallets that moved 350 BTC after 16.5 years of inactivity, saying the wallets earned the coins through mining in March 2010.

Satoshi-era doesn’t mean Satoshi’s Bitcoin

The movement attracted attention partly because the coins date to a period when Nakamoto was still actively involved with Bitcoin.

Nakamoto remained involved in Bitcoin development and communications through 2010 before gradually withdrawing from the project, with their last known communication dating to April 2011.

One of the 12 addresses received a 50 BTC mining reward on March 5, 2010, and moved the coins to a new address on Sept. 5, 2026. Source: Blockchain.com

Whale Alert noted that one reward moved several blocks before most of the others, saying the pattern was consistent with a test transaction before the remaining transfers.

Magazine: BTC will hit $1M by 2030… but Arthur Hayes is buying ETH instead

Kraken is offering perpetual futures tied to the private-market valuations of OpenAI and Anthropic, giving eligible traders leveraged exposure before either artificial intelligence company completes a public listing.

The cash-settled contracts support long and short positions, have no expiration date and offer leverage of up to 5x.The exchange promoted its Anthropic contract again on Sept. 6 after initially announcing both products in June. Kraken’s official post identified the Anthropic contract as PF_ANTHROPICXUSD and confirmed support for multi-collateral margin.

OpenAI trades under the PF_OPENAIXUSD symbol. Neither contract represents shares issued by the companies, and Kraken says it has no affiliation with, endorsement from or sponsorship by OpenAI or Anthropic.

Kraken’s pre-IPO perps do not represent company shares

The products are derivatives designed to track traders’ expectations of each company’s value. Buying an Anthropic or OpenAI contract does not place the customer on either company’s shareholder register.

Contract holders do not receive voting rights, dividends, information rights or access to a future public offering. They also have no claim on OpenAI’s or Anthropic’s assets.Instead, the contracts settle in U.S. dollars through Kraken’s multi-collateral derivatives account. Eligible users can provide several supported assets as margin, subject to the exchange’s collateral haircuts and risk rules.

Kraken’s announcement says traders can use the contracts to take directional positions or hedge other exposure. However, the claim that a trader can “hedge an existing Anthropic position” depends on how closely the synthetic futures price follows the value of any private shares held elsewhere.

However, a private-company shares do not trade continuously on a centralized public exchange. Transactions can occur through private secondary markets at different prices and under varying transfer restrictions. The futures contract may therefore move differently from a particular private shareholding.

Crypto.news previously explained that pre-IPO perpetuals offer exposure without company ownership, creating a market for private-company valuations without a continuously traded underlying stock.

Synthetic pricing replaces a public stock index

Normal equity futures can use a stock exchange price as their external reference. Kraken cannot do that for OpenAI or Anthropic because neither company has publicly traded shares.

The exchange instead created the Kraken PreMarket Synthetic index. Its value comes from activity in the perpetual market itself rather than an independent public share price.Kraken applies exponential smoothing to the index. The process reduces the influence of short-lived order-book movements and causes the reference value to adjust gradually when market prices change.

The contracts’ mark prices are also restricted to within 0.25% above or below the synthetic index. Kraken says this mechanism is designed to limit liquidations caused by momentary price spikes in a thin market.

That protection does not remove valuation risk. If participants collectively misprice a private company, the synthetic index can reflect that view because no liquid spot market exists to correct the contract through ordinary arbitrage.Spreads may also be wider than those in mature equity or cryptocurrency futures. Limited liquidity can make it more expensive to open or close a position, particularly during volatile periods.

Anthropic-linked futures on other platforms previously fell as much as 9% following additional exchange listings. The decline demonstrated how private-company futures can move sharply without a public reference price.

Maximum leverage falls as positions grow

Moreover, Both Kraken contracts offer a base maximum leverage of 5x. At that level, a trader must provide initial margin equal to 20% of the position’s value.

The base maintenance margin is 10%. If losses reduce the account below the required level, Kraken can liquidate the position.Leverage decreases for larger positions. Kraken’s published tiers step down from 5x to approximately 3.3x and then 2x as exposure increases.Funding payments are realized every hour. Kraken describes funding as “structurally minimal” during the pre-IPO period because the mark price remains within the narrow band around its synthetic index.

That description is a company assessment rather than a guaranteed funding cost. Funding can change as market positioning, liquidity and contract specifications change.

The products also carry auto-deleveraging risk. Under that process, profitable positions may be reduced when the exchange cannot close a liquidated counterparty’s position through the order book.Kraken warns that customers can lose all of their margin. Its disclosure also says leveraged losses can exceed the trader’s initial deposit, depending on market conditions and account arrangements.

U.S. and European customers cannot trade the contracts

The Anthropic and OpenAI perpetuals are unavailable in the U.S., European Economic Area, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Only professional clients can access them in the United Kingdom.

Payward Digital Solutions offers the products from Bermuda. The company is licensed to conduct digital asset business by the Bermuda Monetary Authority, according to Kraken’s disclosure.

The geographic exclusions matter because the contracts reference two prominent U.S. companies but are not offered to U.S. traders. They are also separate from Kraken’s regulated U.S. derivatives products.Other exchanges have built similar markets. Coinbase added private-company perpetuals tied to OpenAI and Anthropic for eligible users outside the U.S., while Hyperliquid and several specialized platforms have offered synthetic exposure to companies approaching public listings.

The growth of these products has raised questions about whether private-company derivatives should receive a dedicated regulatory framework. They combine leveraged crypto-market trading with valuations of companies whose financial information is less accessible than that of listed issuers.

A recent industry request asked the SEC to establish rules for pre-IPO perpetuals and consider eventual U.S. market access. Any domestic launch would require regulatory approval and a structure complying with U.S. derivatives and securities laws.

An IPO would trigger a change in pricing

Kraken intends to change the contracts if OpenAI or Anthropic completes an IPO. At that point, the exchange plans to replace its synthetic reference with an index based on the relevant company’s xStocks product.

Kraken says initial margin, maintenance margin, position limits and funding rules are “expected to change.” The exchange plans to disclose the conversion details before implementing them.

The conversion remains conditional. Neither Kraken contract guarantees that the referenced company will complete an IPO, and the existence of a futures market does not provide investors with an allocation in any future offering.If an IPO does not occur or Kraken cannot obtain reliable pricing, the exchange reserves the right to delist and settle the affected contract. Kraken says it may determine the settlement value under its applicable rules.

A pre-IPO contract’s final synthetic price could also differ materially from the eventual listing price. This gap can produce rapid gains, losses and liquidations when the public market establishes a new reference value.

The issue appeared during the expansion of private-company markets around the SpaceX listing, when synthetic contracts converged toward the public share price only as the IPO supplied a verifiable reference.

After conversion, Kraken expects the products to resemble perpetuals tied to its existing tokenized equities. Those xStocks products are issued separately and backed by listed securities, unlike the current OpenAI and Anthropic contracts.

Kraken has continued expanding that infrastructure. Its xStocks offering now provides tokenized access to hundreds of listed securities, while a recent London Stock Exchange partnership could add major British companies subject to regulatory approval.

Solana attracted approximately $348 million in net real-world asset flows over the latest 30-day period, placing it ahead of other tracked blockchain distribution networks.

The increase lifted the value of distributed RWAs on Solana to about $4.23 billion.The RWA Foundation published the figure on Sept. 5 using data from analytics platform RWA.xyz. “Solana is leading the pack,” the organization said in its official post, adding that the network recorded the largest net increase during the period.

The figures cover distributed real-world assets. These are tokenized financial products that investors can subscribe to, hold or transfer through blockchain wallets and approved custodians. They do not represent the total value of every asset referenced by a tokenization platform.

Singapore-based Bitcoin mining company BitFuFu has increased its Bitcoin treasury to 1,373 BTC, highlighting a renewed focus on holding the digital asset even as the miner continues to navigate weaker mining economics and pressure on revenue.

The latest accumulation marks a notable shift from periods when the company sold part of its Bitcoin reserves to finance operations and expand mining capacity. BitFuFu’s recent financial performance has underscored the challenges facing miners as Bitcoin prices, network difficulty, and demand for cloud-mining services affect profitability.

Key Takeaways

• BitFuFu’s Bitcoin treasury has reached 1,373 BTC.
• The company previously used Bitcoin sales to support operations and procure additional mining capacity.
• Second-quarter revenue fell 62.9% year over year to $42.8 million.
• BitFuFu has been rebuilding its managed hashrate after significantly reducing capacity earlier in the year.

Bitcoin Treasury Takes Greater Importance

BitFuFu’s treasury strategy has evolved alongside its mining operations. In May 2025, the company held 1,709 BTC after selling 178 BTC during Bitcoin’s then-record price levels.

CEO Leo Lu said the sales were part of a broader effort to manage liquidity while maintaining the company’s long-term exposure to Bitcoin.

“With a more constructive Bitcoin market environment and a significantly expanded operating base, we are well positioned to capture improving market opportunities in the months ahead.”

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Advertisement

Chilean crypto exchange Orionx began permanently closing its operations on Sept. 3 after a forensic audit identified a custody shortfall exceeding $7 million.

The company suspended customer withdrawals and said it could not guarantee that every client would recover 100% of their assets.

The exchange said the audit found transactions that moved assets under its custody to wallets it did not control. Orionx has filed a criminal complaint with Chilean prosecutors and launched a restitution process intended to return as much as possible to customers.

The allegations have not been proven in court. The two former executives named in the complaint have denied wrongdoing and said the cause of the shortfall remains unresolved.

Orionx audit found four affected crypto assets

Orionx announced the closure through its website and official account. It described the decision as definitive and warned customers about potential impersonation attempts during the closure.

The exchange said it would never request private keys, two-factor authentication codes or transfers by telephone, WhatsApp, email or social media. The warning is relevant because customers waiting to recover funds can become targets for phishing and fraudulent recovery services.

According to information Orionx provided to clients, the shortfall affects Bitcoin, Ether, XRP and Polygon balances. These assets appeared as available in Orionx’s internal records but could not be fully verified at addresses controlled by the company.

A comparison of company records and blockchain data found that the recorded customer balances exceeded the assets held in Orionx’s custody wallets. The audit therefore identified a balance-sheet and custody mismatch rather than a reported compromise of the four blockchain networks.

However, Orionx has not published the affected wallet addresses, complete transaction hashes or a breakdown of the shortfall by asset. Independent blockchain researchers consequently cannot yet verify the company’s full calculation.

The exchange also has not provided an exact number of affected customers. Its disclosure does not establish how much of the $7 million may be recovered from external wallets, exchanges or individuals named in the legal proceedings.

Criminal complaint names two Orionx cofounders

Orionx submitted a criminal complaint on Sept. 2 against former general manager Roberto Zibert and former technology manager Joaquín Díaz. Both helped establish the exchange and allegedly had privileged access to its cryptocurrency custody systems.

The complaint accuses them of alleged unfair administration and asks prosecutors to investigate any other offenses supported by the evidence. Local business newspaper Diario Financiero reported that a forensic examination linked the custody mismatch to wallets outside Orionx’s control.

Details reported by La Tercera place the questioned transactions between 2018 and 2021. Other local reporting says the largest group of transfers may have occurred during 2021 and 2022. That timing remains an allegation drawn from the complaint, not a judicial finding.

The filing reportedly claims that an account associated with Díaz received more than $1.5 million through 14 transfers. It also identifies another wallet that allegedly received 187 ETH, more than 4.1 million USDT and 200,000 USDC from Orionx-related addresses.

Those figures require examination by prosecutors and the court. A transfer into an address does not, by itself, establish who controlled the wallet at the time or whether a crime occurred.

Zibert and Díaz have “categorically rejected” the accusations. In a joint response reported by Chilevisión, they said they never acted against customer interests.

Their statement added that the cause of the custody deficit had not been established. Neither former executive has been convicted, and the complaint begins an investigative process rather than proving Orionx’s claims.

Chilean regulator cannot order customer repayments

Chile’s Financial Market Commission clarified on Sept. 4 that Orionx was neither registered nor authorized under the country’s Fintech Law. The regulator said it did not supervise Orionx’s activities and does not control its closure.

The official statement also disclosed that the commission rejected Orionx’s registration and authorization application on June 19. Until that rejection, the exchange had operated under a transitional arrangement available to companies awaiting licensing decisions.

After the application was rejected, Orionx could only conclude existing operations. It could not enter into new regulated transactions under the transitional regime and had to explain the wind-down process to customers.

The commission also said Orionx had not demonstrated that it held the guarantees required from authorized financial service providers. This does not prove the alleged custody misconduct, but it affects the legal protections available during the closure.

Although Orionx told customers that it had notified the relevant authority about its closure plan, the commission stressed that it neither approved nor supervises that plan. It also lacks authority to direct Orionx to return customer assets.

The regulator advised customers to contact the company directly and preserve account statements, transaction records and communications. Customers can pursue claims through Chilean courts or provide evidence to prosecutors if they believe a crime occurred.

Tether invested in Orionx 15 months before closure

Tether led Orionx’s Series A financing in June 2025 as part of a strategy to expand stablecoin infrastructure across Latin America. Neither company publicly disclosed the investment’s value or Tether’s ownership percentage.

At the time, the companies said the financing would support remittances, payment collection and corporate treasury services in Chile, Peru, Mexico and Colombia. The investment was presented as a way to expand digital financial access across the region.

Crypto.news reported that the deal gave Tether exposure to a Chilean exchange offering services across four Latin American markets. The announcement described how the funding would support Orionx’s regional payments and stablecoin expansion.

Tether’s original announcement is no longer available at its former website address, although an archived copy remains accessible. Its removal does not establish when or why Tether took the page offline.

Tether has not publicly said whether it retained its investment when Orionx announced the closure. It has also not disclosed whether it held board rights, received financial reports or participated in custody oversight.

The stablecoin issuer continued investing in regulated and licensed companies elsewhere. Its later Latin American expansion included a minority investment in Bit2Me, part of a broader pattern of Tether-backed regional financial infrastructure deals.

Customers face an uncertain restitution process

Orionx said its first closure phase is underway, but it has not published a repayment calendar. Withdrawals remain suspended to prevent some customers from recovering assets ahead of others while account balances are reviewed.

The exchange said its priority is to return “the greatest possible amount” of customer assets. That wording confirms that full repayment is uncertain. It should not be interpreted as a commitment to make every customer whole.

The next verifiable developments will come from Orionx’s customer notices, Chilean prosecutorial actions and any court decisions affecting the disputed wallets. Publication of transaction hashes would also allow independent researchers to evaluate the alleged asset movements.

Customers will need individual balance confirmations before Orionx can determine their share of available assets. Recovery could also depend on whether prosecutors locate funds at other exchanges or obtain orders freezing wallets linked to the disputed transfers.

Bitwise’s Hyperliquid exchange-traded fund resumed accumulating HYPE on Sept. 4 after four days without a tracked purchase.

Wallets linked to the fund acquired approximately $10.5 million of the token, according to blockchain intelligence platform Arkham.

The allocation was BHYP’s largest tracked purchase since a $23.2 million transaction on Aug. 27, Arkham reported on Sept. 6. The platform estimates that Bitwise-linked addresses have accumulated about $166.3 million in HYPE since the product launched.

Arkham described BHYP as the “largest HYPE ETF.” That ranking relies on addresses identified by its analysts and the market value of tokens attributed to each product. Bitwise has not issued a matching announcement confirming the $166.3 million figure.

Bitwise HYPE ETF resumed buying after four inactive days

The $10.5 million transaction ended the longest recent gap in BHYP-linked accumulation reported by Arkham. However, the movement should not automatically be interpreted as one investor purchasing $10.5 million of fund shares.

Exchange-traded crypto products create and redeem shares through authorized participants. The trust may receive cash or tokens as part of that process, depending on its operating structure. Its HYPE acquisitions can therefore reflect net share creations, liquidity management or settlement activity involving several investors.

Blockchain data can identify transfers between labeled addresses. It cannot always reveal the commercial purpose of every transfer. Address ownership may also change, while internal custody movements can resemble purchases unless analysts identify the sending address and transaction route.

Arkham’s figures should consequently be treated as third-party estimates rather than audited fund-flow data. The reported four-day pause refers to activity involving wallets recognized by Arkham. It does not prove that the fund received no investor orders during that period.

Official filings confirm BHYP holds HYPE directly

Bitwise announced BHYP in May as a U.S.-listed product designed to hold HYPE rather than derivatives tracking its price. The fund began trading on NYSE Arca on May 15 after commencing operations one day earlier.

Its SEC registration documents state that the trust primarily seeks to reflect the value of its HYPE holdings, minus operating expenses and liabilities. Bitwise markets the vehicle as an ETF, while its regulatory documents describe it as a Delaware statutory trust issuing exchange-traded shares.

The structure gives brokerage customers regulated exposure to HYPE without requiring them to maintain a crypto wallet or interact directly with Hyperliquid. Investors still face the token’s price risk, fund expenses, potential tracking differences and risks associated with crypto custody.

BHYP’s quarterly report names Anchorage Digital Bank as the trust’s HYPE custodian. The filing also confirms that part of the fund’s holdings can be staked to generate rewards.

Bitwise’s fund website lists a target of staking 70% of the trust’s assets. The BHYP product page reported a 2.25% gross staking reward rate and a 1.18% net rate in early September. Those rates can change and do not represent guaranteed returns.

The $166 million ranking depends on wallet attribution

Arkham’s description of BHYP as the largest HYPE ETF is broadly consistent with the fund’s strong early demand. Still, the $166.3 million estimate should not be presented as official assets under management unless Bitwise publishes an equivalent figure.

Tracked token value can differ from a fund’s net assets. An ETF’s reported net asset value incorporates liabilities, cash, accrued fees and other accounting items. The dollar value of an identified wallet also moves continuously with HYPE’s market price.

Comparisons between HYPE products require consistent timestamps and valuation methods. Bitwise competes with products from 21Shares and Grayscale, among others. Grayscale prepared a fund carrying the HYPG ticker and a proposed 0.29% fee, according to coverage of the expanding HYPE ETF market.

BHYP attracted substantial demand soon after launching. Bitwise CEO Hunter Horsley reported approximately $19 million in daily inflows during May, when the fund recorded its strongest session at that time. That inflow helped BHYP take an early lead among HYPE products, as crypto.news reported.

HYPE-linked products collectively surpassed $100 million in reported inflows during their first ten trading sessions. The early total showed that regulated funds were becoming a measurable source of token demand, according to related coverage of institutional HYPE purchases.

ETF purchases are separate from Hyperliquid’s buybacks

BHYP’s purchases form only one part of HYPE’s demand structure. Hyperliquid also operates a protocol mechanism that uses revenue from trading fees to acquire HYPE through its Assistance Fund.

Those purchases are not ETF inflows. They originate from activity on Hyperliquid’s trading platform and continue according to the protocol’s fee-allocation rules. Combining them with BHYP’s activity would overstate demand from investment products.

Hyperliquid had used more than $1.16 billion in fee revenue for HYPE purchases by late May, according to reporting on its automated buyback mechanism. The mechanism links HYPE demand to platform revenue, while ETF buying depends on investor creations and redemptions.

Bitwise has created another, smaller connection between its business and the token. The manager pledged to use 10% of BHYP’s management fees to purchase and hold HYPE on its corporate balance sheet. Those purchases belong to Bitwise rather than the ETF trust, making them distinct from the assets backing BHYP shares. The management-fee commitment therefore should not be counted as fund holdings.

What the next disclosures can confirm

Bitwise’s official holdings, net asset value and shares outstanding offer the clearest way to test Arkham’s estimate. Changes in those figures can show whether the reported wallet accumulation corresponded with new ETF share creation.

Later SEC reports will provide audited or reviewed accounting information, although quarterly filings arrive after the transactions they cover. Daily fund disclosures may provide more current figures, but they can use valuation times that differ from Arkham’s live blockchain calculations.

Investors should also watch for revisions to Arkham’s address labels. A custody transfer, staking movement or newly identified address could change the platform’s estimate without representing fresh investor demand.

No evidence presented by Arkham establishes that the $10.5 million purchase caused a particular movement in HYPE’s price. Token prices respond simultaneously to broader crypto conditions, derivatives positioning, protocol buybacks and trading activity. Any claim assigning a specific price move to BHYP alone would remain speculative.