Bitcoin (BTC) sell-side risk remains near historic lows as August profit-taking cools, new data shows.

Key points:

• Bitcoin’s sell-side risk ratio fell to seven from 16 in September, placing it among its lowest-ever readings.
• Selling pressure eased while Bitcoin held most of its 25% August gains.
• Bitcoin ETF investors have spent 229 sessions below their aggregate breakeven level near $86,000.

Bitcoin hodlers are “selling less” in September, Glassnode says

In the latest edition of Glassnode’s The Week Onchain newsletter, the crypto analytics platform said Bitcoin’s sell-side risk ratio (SSRR) had reset lower.

Sell-side risk sums total onchain realized profits and losses and divides that figure by Bitcoin’s realized market cap. The result is a snapshot of the US dollar value realized over a given period relative to realized cap.

Glassnode describes lower values as signals of “macro market bottoms, accumulation phases and relatively low sell-side risk environments.”

SSRR reached 16 as Bitcoin’s price hit multimonth highs above $80,000 in late August. As of this week, however, the metric has more than halved to 7, one of the lowest readings on record.

Glassnode said the August Bitcoin price rebound had “drawn little supply,” as measured by onchain activity.

“At the July 2025 and October 2025 highs the same measure spiked to 35 and 23 basis points. Only a small share of days in the past year have run lower than today,” it noted.

Data also shows that long-term holders — defined as wallet entities that hold a UTXO without spending it for at least six months — are realizing profits onchain at a lower rate this month.

“Long-term holders’ share of realized profit has fallen to 47% from 88% at the August peak, and September’s realized profit spike on September 3, 2026 was under half the size of August’s,” Glassnode continued. 

“The sellers this month are recent buyers, and even they are selling less.”

Bitcoin ETF buyers eye breakeven point

The SSRR reading may ease concerns that even a modest Bitcoin price correction could trigger panic selling.

Related: New Bitcoin whales spark sell-side risk as unrealized gains hit $9B

Bitcoin investor cohorts have returned to aggregate profit after Bitcoin reclaimed $80,000, potentially increasing the temptation to sell if the price retraces further. As Cointelegraph reported, the spent output profit ratio (SOPR) has remained in net profit for its longest stretch of 2026.

SOPR reflects the net profitability of spent coins, with 1 representing breakeven. Sustained readings above 1 can support a bullish long-term trend change.

Glassnode added that US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) investors would return to aggregate profit at $86,000. Bitcoin has closed below that level for the past 229 sessions, with ETF investors’ paper losses currently around $3.9 billion.

On 8 September, Northland Securities upgraded Intel to Outperform with a price target of $120, citing a shortage of server processors, progress in the company’s business turnaround and potential benefits from its involvement in the Terafab project with Tesla and SpaceX. On the same day, reports emerged that Intel was planning to raise processor prices by around 10% from October amid rising costs and limited supply across the supply chain. The combination of higher prices and a positive rating revision is helping to sustain investor interest in Intel shares against the backdrop of strong performance across the semiconductor sector.

Intel Technical Analysis

From 30 June to 29 July, a short-term trend formed on the INTC four-hour chart. Following a decline, the market corrected higher, with the rebound forming an ascending trendline. The price subsequently broke below this trendline, but the attempted breakout was not confirmed by the RSI + MAs indicator. As a result, the price reversed direction and quickly moved through the current market profile, breaking above its upper boundary at $100.00 and is now attempting to establish itself above this level.

It is worth noting that the red resistance level at $109.00 is relatively close to the current price, while the RSI + MAs indicator currently stands at 75, 56 and 51. The RSI has already entered overbought territory, while the moving averages have yet to leave the neutral zone, making the current breakout attempt look questionable. If the market produces another false breakout, a return into the market profile could bring several important levels into play, including the Point of Control (POC) at $92.00 and the lower boundary of the profile at $86.00. Below this level, and relatively close to it, lies the green support level around $82.00.

Key Takeaways

The RSI being in overbought territory while the moving averages remain in the neutral zone casts doubt on a potential breakout of the profile. The short distance to the red resistance level could also strengthen the current resistance zone. Investor reaction to the planned price increase in October could provide an additional factor influencing the stock’s price action.

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

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

TransparentBusiness Inc., which does business as Unicoin, sued Universal Navigation Inc., which does business as Uniswap Labs, in the Southern District of New York, seeking declarations that its UNICOIN mark does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s claimed marks.

TransparentBusiness argued in a complaint filed Tuesday that its UNICOIN mark does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s claimed UNI, UNISWAP and UNICHAIN marks. It also asked the court to cancel US trademark registration for UNI.

The complaint says Uniswap’s counsel sent three demand letters on June 3, July 17 and Aug. 14, accusing Unicoin of trademark infringement, dilution, cybersquatting and unfair competition, and threatening further legal action. The letters demanded that Unicoin stop using UNICOIN and other UNI-formative marks, transfer its unicoin.com and unicoin.org domains, provide an accounting of revenue and profits, and reimburse Uniswap’s legal fees.

The complaint also seeks a declaration that unicoin.com and unicoin.org domains do not violate the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

Cointelegraph has approached Uniswap for comment on the lawsuit.

At the time of writing, DeFiLlama ranked the Uniswap protocol first among decentralized exchanges by 24-hour volume, with more than $3.9 billion.

The lawsuit was filed weeks before the Sept. 28 public launch date that Unicoin lists on its website for the UNCN token.

Related: Pudgy Penguins accused of infringing Original Penguin trademark

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Former Silvergate Bank CEO Alan Lane says the bank’s 2023 voluntary wind-down was driven less by internal weaknesses and more by political and regulatory pressure, arguing that Silvergate remained solvent after meeting withdrawal demands in late 2022.

In an inaugural post on his Substack published Tuesday, Lane claimed Silvergate could have continued operating after satisfying withdrawals equal to 70% of its demand deposits during the fourth quarter of 2022, and he characterized the decision to liquidate as a response to “political pressure” rather than an inability to access liquidity.

Key takeaways

• Lane argues Silvergate had sufficient liquid resources to withstand heavy withdrawals in Q4 2022 and that liquidation followed political pressure.
• Federal regulators’ accounts emphasize different causes, pointing to concentrated crypto deposits, funding and governance risks, and compliance shortcomings.
• Lane disputes claims that regulators proved Silvergate’s anti-money laundering (AML) controls failed, even as enforcement actions followed.
• The SEC alleged failures in monitoring certain high-volume transaction flows tied to FTX entities; the case resulted in a settlement without admitting or denying wrongdoing.
• Regulatory guidance on crypto issued in 2023 was later withdrawn in April 2025, adding another layer to the debate over pressure versus policy.

Lane’s liquidity argument and the Q4 2022 numbers

Lane’s core claim is that Silvergate’s balance sheet gave it options even amid stress. He said the bank had held liquid assets that could be sold or pledged as collateral as withdrawals accelerated.

He also pointed to Silvergate’s own January 2023 business update, which reported a sharp contraction in digital asset-related deposits during the fourth quarter of 2022. According to the update, digital asset deposits fell 68% from $11.9 billion to $3.8 billion over the quarter.

In that same update, Silvergate said it sold $5.2 billion of debt securities and recorded a $718 million loss. The bank reported $4.6 billion in cash and equivalents at year-end. Lane’s Substack post uses these figures to support the argument that the bank had liquidity capacity and therefore did not necessarily face unavoidable collapse at that stage.

Still, Lane’s narrative directly challenges the dominant regulator view that Silvergate’s issues were structural—rooted in how quickly its funding base eroded, how its risk controls were implemented, and how governance handled the rapidly changing environment.

What regulators said instead: governance, risk management, and compliance

A September 2023 review by the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General concluded that Silvergate’s reliance on crypto depositors, its rapid growth, and multilayered funding risks contributed to its liquidation. The review also cited weaknesses in corporate governance and risk management, and said supervisory actions could have been more aggressive and decisive.

That assessment contrasts with Lane’s position that the wind-down was not evidence of a solvency crisis driven by internal failure. Lane said he had not seen a regulator demonstrate that Silvergate’s AML program had been proven to be ineffective.

The regulatory record he referenced is more complicated. After the bank’s winding down, the SEC moved to enforce against Silvergate Capital and its leadership. In July 2024, the SEC charged Silvergate Capital, Alan Lane, and former chief risk officer Kathleen Fraher with misleading investors about the bank’s AML program and monitoring of crypto customers.

Per the SEC’s allegations, Silvergate’s automated system did not monitor more than $1 trillion in transactions, and the bank allegedly failed to detect nearly $9 billion in suspicious transfers among FTX entities.

Enforcement outcomes and the stakes for the crypto-banking debate

Lane said he settled rather than contested the SEC’s case. According to the reporting linked in the source material, Lane settled the charges without admitting or denying wrongdoing, agreeing to a $1 million penalty and a five-year officer-and-director bar.

Separately, the Federal Reserve fined Silvergate $43 million over transaction-monitoring deficiencies. Those actions, while not identical in scope to the Office of Inspector General review, reinforce the regulator emphasis on compliance and monitoring failures rather than solely on funding concentration.

For investors and market participants tracking whether banking access to crypto is shrinking due to policy pressure, the Silvergate dispute has become a proxy for a larger question: was the outcome primarily caused by crypto-adjacent funding volatility, or by how risk management and controls were applied to that business model?

Lane’s Substack intervention matters because it adds a first-person account that highlights a timeline in which the bank still had liquidity tools available and depositors withdrew only up to a point that Lane says could have been managed without liquidation.

Policy guidance, then withdrawal: did “pressure” shift bank behavior?

Lane also pointed to interagency statements about crypto risk that were issued in early 2023. He cited them as evidence that US regulators were applying pressure to banks operating in crypto-adjacent markets.

According to the source material, those statements urged banks to take a cautious approach to crypto-related activities. However, the Federal Reserve said institutions were not prohibited from serving any specific customer class and were not discouraged in a way that barred particular types of relationships.

In April 2025, government agencies withdrew the statements. That development is significant to the broader debate because it suggests the guidance—at least as originally formulated—was not meant to remain authoritative indefinitely.

Lane’s argument is therefore best understood as a claim about decision-making under regulatory uncertainty: even if regulators did not formally ban banks from serving crypto clients, he argues that the tone and direction of policy encouraged a conservative posture that became difficult to reverse as deposit pressures intensified.

As the debate continues, readers should watch whether further details emerge from Lane’s account that directly address the regulator findings on monitoring and governance, and whether regulators provide clearer guidance on how banks can balance crypto services with demonstrable controls—particularly now that the earlier 2023 crypto-risk statements have been withdrawn.

Singapore Exchange has secured CFTC authorization to give U.S. institutional investors direct access to its Bitcoin and Ether perpetual futures, opening its existing crypto derivatives order books to American trading firms.

SGX Group head of crypto derivatives KC Lam told CoinDesk that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission authorization was granted under Regulation 48.10, allowing U.S. institutions to trade products that had previously been unavailable to them.

“Under the Regulation 48.10 ruling, we have obtained CFTC authorization to open our crypto products to U.S. institutional access. Previously, U.S. participants couldn’t trade these contracts but now they can,” Lam said.

The approval applies to SGX’s Bitcoin perpetual futures, or BTP, and Ether perpetual futures, known as ETP. Both products have been trading since late November 2025 and operate without an expiry date.

SGX crypto perpetual futures gain a route into the US

Regulation 48.10 provides a route for a Foreign Board of Trade, an overseas exchange recognized by the CFTC, to offer qualifying U.S. participants direct access to its electronic trading system.

SGX can therefore make its existing contracts and order books accessible to eligible American institutions without creating separate U.S. listings or registering the Singapore venue as a domestic exchange.

Lam described the authorization as “an important milestone” that connects U.S. traditional finance participants trading crypto futures with Asian liquidity pools. He said the regulatory route helps establish crypto derivatives as a regulated asset class.

U.S. access comes as regulated perpetual futures have been gaining ground in the country. In May, the CFTC approved the first regulated Bitcoin perpetual for listing on a U.S. exchange, opening a domestic path for a type of contract that had been concentrated on offshore crypto platforms.

Eligible U.S. customers subsequently gained several routes into the market. crypto.news previously reported that Kraken launched perpetual futures in June through its CFTC-regulated derivatives business, Bitnomial, giving eligible clients access to perpetual contracts alongside spot, margin and traditional futures products.

SGX is taking a different route by extending direct institutional access to contracts already trading on its Singapore market.

Bitcoin accounts for most SGX perpetual futures activity

Since their November 2025 launch, SGX’s Bitcoin and Ether perpetual futures have generated $5.8 billion in cumulative trading volume, equivalent to roughly 400,000 lots.

Average daily volume across the two contracts reached 1,300 lots, or $19 million, as of August. Bitcoin represented 83% of average daily trading volume since inception and 66% of outstanding open interest.

The exchange recorded its busiest session at 11,500 lots, representing $145 million in notional trading volume.

American participation is not expected to appear immediately because institutional clients still need to complete SGX’s onboarding process. New users are brought in through clearing members and must complete know-your-customer checks, fund their accounts and establish API connections.

Lam said the process normally takes two to four weeks regardless of where a client is based. SGX has completed its FIS-enabled back-office integration and is preparing U.S. clearing members to onboard clients over the next one or two months.

Institutional demand for regulated crypto perpetuals has been developing through other structures in the U.S. market. Coinbase Financial Markets received a regulatory route in May allowing eligible American institutions to access global crypto derivatives, initially through derivatives listed on Deribit. The arrangement relied on CFTC staff positions covering foreign futures and related margin requirements.

SGX uses margin calls instead of automatic liquidation

Traders on SGX currently use the Bitcoin and Ether contracts for directional positions and arbitrage strategies.

Some positions are tied to macroeconomic themes such as concerns over currency debasement, while other traders use cash-and-carry strategies to capture differences in funding rates and prices across trading venues.

Although SGX’s contracts have no expiration date, their risk management structure differs from perpetual futures commonly traded on crypto-native exchanges.

The exchange uses margin calls and requires traders to provide additional collateral when their positions fall below margin requirements. Positions are not immediately closed through the automatic liquidation systems commonly used by crypto exchanges.

“Unlike crypto-native venues where sudden volatility can trigger auto-liquidations, our traditional risk framework uses margin calls and top-up collateral, to prevent involuntary position closures during market spikes,” Lam said.

Automatic liquidations occur when leveraged positions develop a margin shortfall as prices move against traders. Crypto exchanges can close positions automatically if collateral requirements are no longer met, a process that can lead to clusters of forced selling or buying during sharp market moves.

SGX separates trading and clearing functions as another part of its risk structure. Clearing members sit between the exchange and participating clients and act as an intermediate layer for managing risk.

“By routing trades through clearing members who act as an intermediate risk buffer, we mirror the proven infrastructure of traditional futures and commodities markets,” Lam said.

The exchange does not accept stablecoins as collateral for its crypto perpetual contracts. Lam said stablecoins were excluded because they can lose their peg during periods of market volatility.

SGX’s contracts instead use benchmarks jointly developed with CoinDesk Indices. Mohit Baheti, head of iEdge Indices at SGX Group, said the indices are managed under the European Union Benchmark Regulation.

Regulated perpetual products in the United States have continued expanding since the first Bitcoin contract received approval. Kalshi introduced Ether perpetuals shortly after its Bitcoin rollout and later expanded its lineup to include Solana perpetual futures, while several other crypto contracts went through regulatory review.

SGX plans to move beyond perpetuals by developing dated Bitcoin and Ether futures and options.

“The next step in our pipeline is launching dated futures and options for Bitcoin and Ethereum,” Lam said.

Building the infrastructure needed for those products represents the main technical work, according to Lam. Once that system is operating, SGX expects the process of adding other major cryptocurrencies to become more similar to introducing another futures contract.

“We plan to broaden our offerings but we are taking a disciplined, step-by-step approach,” Lam said.