Lemon is closing all Brazil operations by October 16, 2026. The Argentine crypto app cited capital rules under Brazil’s new licensing framework. Lemon will redirect funds toward Argentina, Peru, and Colombia instead.

License Capital Proves Too Costly

Brazil’s Central Bank enforces the PSAV framework, active since February 2026. The rules set capital thresholds that unlicensed firms must meet. Lemon determined the requirement outweighed its local business size.

New BRL deposits are already blocked for existing customers. The Lemon Card, launched weeks earlier with Pomelo, stops processing September 30. Around 15,000 Brazilian users still hold active balances.

Lemon says it will contact every affected user directly. The company will assist customers with withdrawals before the deadline. Accounts fully close on October 16, 2026.

Wider Brazil Shakeout Continues

Lemon is not alone in retreating from Brazil’s market. Coinext shut down after missing minimum capital requirements. Digitra wound down its retail trading operations entirely.

Crypto.com keeps its Brazil entity but closes BRL accounts October 25. Ripple, meanwhile, continues pursuing a Brazil VASP license. Only well-capitalized firms appear positioned to remain.

Binance already secured regulatory approval inside Brazil. Coinbase expanded USDC-earn products into the same market. Binance also relaunched its Brazil card with Mastercard support.

Argentina, Peru, and Colombia Gain Lemon’s Focus

Lemon frames Argentina’s framework as clearer and more secure. Brazil’s rules, by contrast, pushed out smaller innovative players. Bitcoin purchases on Lemon in Argentina hit a 20-month high.

Peru already hosts over one million Lemon users under an SBS license. Colombia adds another 150,000 users to Lemon’s regional base. Both markets will receive the capital freed from Brazil.

Bitget’s own PSAV registration suggests Argentina still attracts serious capital. Brazil’s depth remains real, with a proposed 1 million BTC reserve bill in Congress. Lemon’s exit reflects a capital filter, not a market collapse.

U.S. President Donald Trump said he plans to create an “AI Force” and appoint an “AI czar,” positioning the initiative as a way to manage the rapidly expanding artificial intelligence sector without introducing new regulations that could slow innovation.

In a Saturday post on Truth Social, Trump likened the proposal to his “Space Force” effort from his first term, saying the AI Force would be paired with a future appointment of an “AI ‘Czar’.” The president did not provide additional specifics on the role’s mandate, reporting structure, or timing. Reporting at the time noted that White House officials did not respond to a request for clarification.

Key takeaways

• Trump announced plans for an “AI Force” and an “AI czar,” framing the approach as pro-innovation and less regulatory.
• The president gave few details on whether the AI Force is military, civilian, or housed within an existing federal department.
• The announcement lands amid broader debate over whether AI development should be slowed or governed more closely for safety reasons.
• Separately, Anthropic has moved to implement a framework intended to help moderate AI development pace, including appointing Accenture as its first embedded evaluator.

Trump’s AI Force and the “AI czar” concept

Trump’s comments, published via Truth Social, describe the “AI Force” as a structured effort similar in concept to Space Force, which he said was a “tremendous SUCCESS” during his first term. He also indicated that an “AI ‘Czar’” would be announced “in the near future,” adding that only “High I.Q. individuals” should apply.

However, Trump did not outline what the AI Force would actually do—whether it would coordinate agencies, oversee safety practices, or set operational priorities for AI deployments. The available reporting also highlighted that it was unclear whether the effort would take a military form or be organized as a civilian body, and White House staff did not answer an email seeking clarification.

For investors and builders, the main uncertainty is not the existence of a policy headline, but the eventual structure: where authority would sit, what standards (if any) would be enforced, and how quickly agencies might translate the concept into operational guidance. In the U.S., even broad executive initiatives can influence procurement decisions, government partnerships, and compliance expectations across the AI supply chain.

A backdrop of safety debate over AI development pace

Trump’s post comes at a moment when prominent AI leaders are publicly arguing about the trade-offs between speed and safety. Earlier coverage described a growing concern that advanced AI systems could advance faster than society’s ability to evaluate and control their risks.

Cointelegraph reported on Sept. 12 that Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei had circulated a three-step proposal aimed at pacing AI development to achieve a safer rhythm. The rationale, as described in that reporting, was that if development proceeds unchecked, it could “outrun our ability to understand and control these systems.”

In the days that followed, the discussion expanded beyond Anthropic’s internal framework. Reporting also indicated that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk responded positively to Amodei’s proposal, signaling support from multiple corners of the AI ecosystem. At the same time, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang reportedly argued against the idea that regulation is necessary in this form, underscoring how uneven consensus remains even among leading industry figures.

Anthropic picks Accenture as an embedded evaluator

While Trump signaled a desire to avoid new regulatory drag, Anthropic moved ahead with its own approach to managing deployment pace. On Sunday, Anthropic said it had selected Accenture as its first embedded evaluator—an element described in prior reporting as part of the first step in Amodei’s proposal.

Cointelegraph’s earlier coverage noted the goal of helping moderate the pace of AI development through evaluation mechanisms. By selecting a partner and embedding evaluators, the company is effectively translating a policy concept into an execution pathway: creating an additional layer intended to examine development progress and associated risks before capabilities expand further.

This matters for the broader AI market because evaluation and monitoring frameworks can become de facto standards. Even when not created through legislation, they influence how companies invest in model releases, testing processes, and governance resources. For developers building tools that integrate with frontier models, changes in release pacing can also affect timelines for product launches, risk management requirements, and customer expectations.

Why the AI Force announcement intersects with crypto

Even though Trump’s proposal is centered on AI governance, the announcement resonates across the technology sectors that overlap with crypto: infrastructure for compute and data, enterprise automation, and the growing use of AI in verification, compliance, and market tooling.

The key point is not that the AI Force is directly about blockchain, but that AI policy can reshape how quickly systems are deployed and audited. That, in turn, can influence demand for compliant custody services, audit tooling, and transparency layers—areas where crypto-related infrastructure often aims to provide verifiable logs and programmable controls. If the U.S. pushes a governance model that emphasizes coordination rather than regulation, companies in adjacent ecosystems may still need to adapt quickly, as guidance can shift even without new formal rules.

At the same time, the contrast between the messaging—“no new regulations that could slow innovation”—and the industry’s parallel push toward pacing frameworks highlights a tension investors should watch. Industry-led safety approaches like Anthropic’s embedded evaluators suggest that self-governance mechanisms may continue to evolve regardless of the political posture toward regulation.

Looking ahead, readers should watch for concrete details on what Trump’s AI Force will actually do—its authority, structure, and timelines—as well as whether the “AI czar” role becomes a focal point for standards that affect model deployment. Meanwhile, Anthropic’s choice of an embedded evaluator and the broader industry debate over pacing will likely remain a key indicator of how AI risk management evolves in practice, not just in policy headlines.

ZetaChain has moved closer to approving a plan that would migrate its native ZETA token to Solana and eventually shut down its own Layer 1, with 99.4% of votes supporting Proposal 68 ahead of its Sept. 20 deadline.

ZetaHub’s live governance tally showed 58% participation, clearing the 40% quorum requirement, with 0.3% voting against and 0.3% abstaining. Voting is scheduled to close at 14:58:18 UTC on Sept. 20, after a standard 72-hour voting period.

The vote does not itself move ZETA or shut down the network. ZetaChain’s formal migration proposal says a successful vote authorizes core contributors to prepare a second proposal containing the actual migration mechanism, snapshot height, claim process, exchange arrangements and L1 halt schedule.

ZETA would move 1:1 to Solana without new supply

Proposal 68 would establish Solana as ZETA’s canonical network after migration. ZETA would become a native SPL token while retaining its existing ticker and total token supply. Each holder would receive an equivalent amount of ZETA on Solana through a 1:1 conversion.

One technical adjustment involves decimals. Native ZETA currently uses 18 decimal places, while the proposed Solana token would use nine. Proposal 68 says balances would convert from 18 to nine decimals and any amount below the supported precision would be rounded down.

Existing vesting schedules would continue through their original dates. The project says no new tokens would be created, while each address would receive its corresponding balance based on the final migration snapshot.

ZetaChain’s Sept. 17 announcement says ZETA already issued on Ethereum and BNB Chain is outside the scope of the current governance proposal. The core vote concerns ZETA native to ZetaChain and the future of the Layer 1 itself.

The project ruled out maintaining the new Solana asset as a wrapped representation backed by tokens locked permanently on ZetaChain. Its proposal states that a bridge would depend on the original chain continuing to operate, while the current plan eventually shuts that chain down.

Proposal 2 must approve the actual ZetaChain shutdown

A successful Proposal 68 would only approve the migration direction. ZetaChain validators would continue validating, users could continue staking and current balances would remain unchanged until another governance vote takes place.

Core contributors would first need to coordinate with exchanges that list ZETA. The governance proposal says Proposal 2 will not be submitted until participating exchanges have confirmed their token-swap procedures, because platforms require advance notice before committing to migrations.

Proposal 2 would then establish the block height used for the balance snapshot, the connected-chain withdrawal window, the chain halt, the Solana claim process and the exchange conversion period. It would contain the holder protections and technical details needed for execution.

ZetaChain plans to publish the snapshot export and checksum so balances can be independently reproduced. An archive node and explorer would remain accessible after shutdown, according to the proposal. Programs or contracts holding user ZETA during migration would undergo audits before handling the tokens.

Staking rewards would continue until the shutdown time specified in Proposal 2. ZetaChain has not yet finalized what staking could look like after the move to Solana, saying the future mechanism remains “under active exploration.”

Anuma and 300,000 users form part of the Solana plan

ZetaChain’s proposal reaches beyond its token. Anuma, its private multi-model AI application, and the Private Memory Layer behind it would move to Solana as part of the project’s new technical focus.

The company says more than 300,000 people have joined Anuma since February, with the application passing one million requests across 35 AI models. Its published data showed 301,195 users through Sept. 16.

Anuma uses encrypted memory intended to remain under a user’s control as the person moves among different AI models. ZetaChain says closed model providers receive only the context required for individual requests, while a private mode routes queries to open models using zero-retention infrastructure. Those privacy descriptions are company claims concerning the application’s design.

ZETA already has a utility role inside Anuma. Users can lock ZETA to receive credits and spend those credits on AI usage, with locked tokens removed from circulating supply while committed. ZetaChain wants other Solana applications and agents to connect to the same Private Memory Layer and use ZETA within that application system.

The project said “running our own L1 no longer helps us build private AI,” presenting the operating cost and security work associated with maintaining a separate Cosmos-based network as part of its case for moving.

Security work helped shape the case for leaving the L1

ZetaChain’s proposal specifically cites the maintenance burden inherited from Cosmos SDK and related components. Its node repository confirms that ZetaChain is built with Cosmos SDK and Cosmos EVM, requiring its validator network to coordinate upstream software upgrades and security patches.

The proposal refers to an Aug. 25 security response as an example. Cosmos Labs’ later technical post-mortem found that attackers exploited a critical Cosmos EVM vulnerability across six chains between Aug. 20 and Aug. 25. The incident prompted Cosmos security teams to coordinate with 40 networks while helping other chains patch or halt.

The public post-mortem does not identify ZetaChain as one of the six exploited networks, so the attacks should not be described as a ZetaChain exploit. The proposal instead cites upstream vulnerability management and validator coordination as continuing operational work associated with running its Cosmos-based L1.

As crypto.news reported during the Cosmos EVM security response, affected Cosmos EVM chains were advised to coordinate validator halts while teams worked to contain the vulnerability. A later crypto.news investigation into the Cosmos EVM attacks reported that approximately $5.72 million in stolen assets had been converted through decentralized and centralized exchanges across the confirmed incidents.

Meanwhile, ZetaChain’s public GitHub work already shows migration-related engineering. An open pull request added tooling to export ZETA state and calculate balances per address for snapshots, while its changelog includes emergency tooling for moving native assets during cross-chain shutdown procedures.

Solana infrastructure would replace ZetaChain validators

After a completed migration and L1 shutdown, Solana validators would secure the network hosting native ZETA. ZetaChain would no longer maintain its own independent consensus set for the token.

The project cited Solana’s speed, transaction costs, liquidity and agent infrastructure when explaining the proposed move. Its Sept. 17 announcement referred to confirmations of roughly 400 milliseconds and described sub-cent settlement as suitable for repeated AI-agent transactions.

Solana has since activated another performance change. The Solana Foundation’s latest engineering update says the network reduced its target slot duration to 250 milliseconds, following earlier reductions during August.

Solana’s 250-millisecond slot upgrade that the change raises the targeted slot rate to four per second, though overall computation limits were adjusted alongside the shorter slots.

ZETA traded around $0.0342 on Sept. 17, the date ZetaChain announced the migration proposal, before closing near $0.0400 on Sept. 19, according to CoinGecko historical data. The move represents an increase of roughly 17% across the two dates, though the price data does not establish that the governance proposal alone caused the rise.

If Proposal 68 clears the vote after 14:58:18 UTC, core contributors can proceed with exchange coordination and prepare Proposal 2. Until that second proposal passes, ZetaChain’s existing L1, staking system, validator set and native ZETA balances remain in operation.

Binance Wallet has launched access to PancakeSwap’s Pre-Access campaigns, allowing eligible users to subscribe to third-party tokens designed to provide indirect economic exposure to private companies before a possible public listing.

Binance’s FAQ, published Sept. 20, makes clear that Binance Wallet does not issue, sell or operate the products. PancakeSwap hosts the campaigns and token sales, while third-party providers may use funds, special purpose vehicles, protocols, smart contracts or other arrangements to structure the underlying exposure.

Advertisement

Binance Wallet gives access, but users do not buy company shares

A Pre-Access Token can “provide eligible users with indirect exposure” to a private company or related asset, according to Binance Wallet. The product does not place users directly on the private company’s shareholder register and does not give them ownership of the target company’s shares.

Participants receive no voting, dividend, information, governance or standard shareholder rights through the token. Binance says the exposure may instead take contractual, synthetic or other indirect forms, depending on the structure chosen by the third-party provider behind a particular campaign.

Each PancakeSwap campaign is expected to set its own subscription price, implied valuation, eligibility conditions, timeline, allocation method and settlement rules. Binance warns that the stated subscription price may differ materially from a future IPO price, market value, redemption value or conversion value.

The implied valuation carries the same qualification. It may differ from the company’s most recent funding valuation, secondary-market price or eventual IPO valuation, and Binance Wallet says it does not independently verify or guarantee that figure.

Advertisement

The structure follows a growing market for tokenized exposure to private companies. Ascrypto.news previously reported on pre-IPO token structures, such products can range from contractual claims to synthetic exposure and do not necessarily provide the legal rights associated with owning the underlying shares.

Alpha Points and bStocks activity can raise allocations

Participation through Binance Wallet requires a Keyless Wallet and an eligibility check. Users can enter an available campaign through the Pre-Access section, review its rules and submit a subscription amount directly from their self-custodied wallet.

Final allocations depend on three factors identified in Binance’s current rules: Alpha Points, Trencher Badge status and the user’s bStocks On-Chain Tier. Higher Alpha Points and a higher bStocks tier can increase the allocation, while Trencher Badge holders receive an additional allocation. PancakeSwap retains control of the final campaign rules.

Binance introduced its Trencher certification in April for active onchain traders using Binance Wallet Keyless addresses. Its rules say assessments can consider wallet trading volume, activity, community engagement and other criteria, while a badge can be revoked for conduct such as wash trading or volume manipulation.

Advertisement

bStocks provide another connection between Binance’s existing tokenized-equity products and Pre-Access allocations. Binance describes bStocks as tokenized securities that provide economic exposure to listed stocks or ETFs without giving holders direct ownership of the underlying shares.

Binance launched bStocks, the products initially brought tokenized U.S. equity exposure into Binance’s onchain ecosystem, including support for self-custody and DeFi use.

Binance Research later found that bStock listings expanded from five to 25 in less than a month, while their onchain market capitalization reached roughly $300 million during the period covered by its July study.

Pre-Access expands an existing private-market token trend

Binance Research had examined the private-market access gap four days before the Pre-Access FAQ appeared. Its Sept. 16 research estimated that roughly 1,300 private companies carried valuations above $1 billion, representing close to $4.7 trillion in aggregate value.

Advertisement

The same report said tokenized pre-IPO products on Republic and PreStocks had reached only around $41 million in market capitalization as of Sept. 15. Binance Research described such instruments as contractual claims or economic-exposure vehicles whose holders generally lack voting rights and can remain exposed to fees, dilution, lockups, counterparty failures and legal restrictions.

Private-company derivatives have developed faster than tokenized ownership-style products. Binance Research put combined open interest in Anthropic and OpenAI pre-IPO perpetuals above $160 million in September, compared with roughly $1 million in April.

Other platforms have entered the same market through different structures. Coinbase’s pre-IPO perpetuals tied to companies including SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic. Those contracts are derivatives and do not convey private-company ownership.

However, Kraken’s OpenAI and Anthropic products in September, noting that contract holders receive no voting rights, dividends or direct claims on the companies’ assets.

Advertisement

PreStocks has taken a tokenized route. Crypto.news reported on its Solana launch in 2025, when the platform introduced tokens referencing private companies such as SpaceX, OpenAI and Neuralink through Jupiter.

Settlement can remain uncertain even after an IPO

A company completing an IPO does not automatically convert a Pre-Access Token into listed shares. Binance says users may continue holding or trading the token where legally and technically supported, but conversion into a tokenized real-world asset or another settlement form can be delayed, restricted or unavailable.

The token can trade at a premium or discount to the listed company’s shares after an IPO because its secondary-market price depends on supply, demand, liquidity, lockups, transfer restrictions and product-specific rules. Binance expressly says it does not guarantee that a target company will complete an IPO.

Counterparty performance creates another layer of risk. If the underlying exposure cannot be delivered, any refund, unwind, replacement or compensation will depend on PancakeSwap and the relevant third-party provider. Binance Wallet does not guarantee a recovery.

Advertisement

Its risk warning states that trading, redemption, conversion or settlement “may be unavailable, delayed, restricted, suspended, or cancelled.” If a private company or another party challenges the structure, participants could face a forced unwind or partial or total loss of value.

Funds can likewise be locked, reserved or transferred under each campaign’s smart-contract and product rules after subscription. Where a campaign becomes oversubscribed, allocations may be reduced, prorated, rejected, delayed or canceled.

First PancakeSwap Pre-Access project remains unnamed

PancakeSwap has opened the Pre-Access portal, but no target private company had been identified in official materials reviewed on Sept. 20. Reports citing the launch said the first project would be revealed later, without a confirmed announcement date.

Each eventual campaign page is expected to disclose its company and token details, subscription asset, price, implied valuation, eligibility requirements, allocation structure, claim process and risk terms. Investors who receive allocations will hold the resulting token in their own self-custodial wallets, subject to the product’s transfer and trading restrictions.

Advertisement

Binance Wallet’s existing disclaimer says its wallet services are provided by Binance Barbados Limited and are not supervised by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority or another regulator. Separate bStocks products follow their own legal structure, including an approved prospectus framework in Abu Dhabi Global Market, and should not be treated as legally identical to Pre-Access Tokens.

Binance’s FAQ directs participants to the individual PancakeSwap campaign documents for the final allocation, refund and settlement terms. Until the first campaign is disclosed, no subscription price, target private company, token structure, fundraising amount or campaign deadline has been officially announced.

Supply chain holes

Divide in corporate America

US President Donald Trump said that he plans to create an “AI Force” and appoint an artificial intelligence czar.

Trump posted on Truth Social on Saturday that his new project would manage the fast-growing sector without adding regulations that could slow innovation, according to Newsweek and other media.

“For this purpose, I am forming the AI Force, much like I did Space Force, which has been a tremendous SUCCESS, in my First Term,” the president wrote. “To that end, I will be announcing, in the near future, the AI ‘Czar’ — Only High I.Q. individuals need apply!”

Trump did not say whether the AI Force would be a military command, a civilian agency or a department, the New York Times noted, adding that White House officials did not respond to an email seeking clarification.

Related: Anthropic tabs Accenture as embedded evaluator to help with AI slowdown proposal  

Trump offered no further details or timeline for the plan, the BBC said, noting that his post had come amid warnings about the potential dangers of AI.

Cointelegraph reported on Sept. 12 that Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei had written a three-step proposal to pace the speed of AI development that if left unchecked, might “outrun our ability to understand and control these systems.”

On Sunday, Anthropic said it had chosen Accenture as its first embedded evaluator to help moderate the pace of AI development, moving ahead with the first step outlined in Amodei’s proposal, Cointelegraph said.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk responded positively to Amodei’s proposal, although Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang did not, arguing that such regulation was not necessary.

Magazine: 10 of the greatest unsolved crypto mysteries

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.

There is one hurdle if Coinbase wants to run a trading venue directly under the exemption. Its exchanges use central limit order books, while the SEC framework is built around automated market makers (AMM).

That means, the Goldman report noted, Coinbase would need new infrastructure or could route activity through AMM-based decentralized exchanges, for example to protocols on Base.

Robinhood expected to adjust for U.S. market

Robinhood could also benefit, even though its current offshore stock tokens do not fit the SEC framework.

Those products provide price exposure to U.S. shares through a derivative without conveying the full ownership rights required under the exemption. Goldman analysts said Robinhood would need additional product development to offer a compliant version in the U.S.

It became a flashpoint earlier this month when movie theater operator AMC Entertainment’s CEO criticized Robinhood for offering AMC-linked stock tokens without the company’s approval. The SEC’s new framework gives issuers the right to object before third-party tokenized versions of their shares can begin trading.

Still, Citizens analysts expect Robinhood to move quickly given the traction of its tokenized-equity offering outside the U.S. and its broader push around its Arbitrum-based Robinhood Chain.

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev already signaled this week that more shareholder features, including share redemptions and voting rights, will be added to the stock tokens.

For Matt Hougan, CIO at Bitwise Asset Management, the U.S. still has two and a half more years of a pro-crypto regulatory regime, during which the industry can continue to move forward.

Hougan remains bullish on crypto. “I don’t think it will stop investors from considering smaller-cap assets with strong tokenomics and links to real-world assets.”

However, he added, “had the Clarity Act passed the Senate vote, I think crypto would have been the consensus ‘smart money trade’ in Q4, and prices would have ramped back toward all-time highs.”

But because it failed, “I think the road ahead is bumpier,” Hougan said. “I don’t think it’s changed too much from where it was Monday before the vote.”

Hougan said the Clarity Act was and remains irrelevant to bitcoin, so if bitcoin’s price continues to drop, it has more to do with sentiment than fundamentals. “If bitcoin sells off in the short-term due to Clarity Act vibes, I’d consider that an opportunity,” he said.

No bottom yet?

Vineet Budki, managing partner and CEO of Sigma Capital, said bitcoin’s recovery and the long-liquidation flush do not yet establish that the bottom is in.

“I’m not ready to make that call,” Budki said. “I’d rather give it a quarter and let the price action speak before taking a firm directional view.”

Grayscale’s Zcash ETF has scheduled a 3-for-1 forward share split for Sept. 30, with each shareholder receiving three post-split ZCSH shares for every share held before the adjustment.

The Sept. 18 filing says investors recorded as shareholders at the close of trading on Sept. 28 will qualify for the split. Two additional shares for each existing share will be distributed after the market closes on Sept. 29, with split-adjusted trading due to begin before NYSE Arca opens on Sept. 30.

JUST IN: Grayscale’s Zcash ETF plans a 3-for-1 share split less than a month after its NYSE debut.

The fund has already attracted $843 million in assets under management, marking rapid growth for the Zcash investment product since its launch. pic.twitter.com/LJtmPMYqRk

Advertisement

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 19, 2026

Zcash ETF split triples shares without changing investment value

The SEC filing states that the split does not change the total economic value represented by an investor’s holding at the moment of adjustment. The number of shares will triple while the net asset value represented by each share will fall proportionately.

Grayscale said the post-split NAV per share is “expected to be approximately one-third” of its level immediately before the split, according to the fund’s release.

Under that structure, an investor holding 10 ZCSH shares would hold 30 after the split, assuming the position remains unchanged through the relevant dates. Shareholders receive two new shares for each existing share, not three extra shares on top of their original holding.

Neither the ticker nor the security identifier is scheduled to change. The filing says the fund will continue trading on NYSE Arca as ZCSH and retain the same CUSIP number after the split.

Grayscale has not described the forward split as a distribution of new investment returns. Its disclosure presents the event as a change in share structure, with more shares outstanding and a correspondingly lower price and NAV per share.

ZCSH assets grew rapidly after its August listing

Grayscale said ZCSH began trading on NYSE Arca on Aug. 25 after the former Grayscale Zcash Trust was converted into the exchange-traded product. An earlier SEC filing announced the planned listing and name change four days before trading began.

As crypto.news previously reported on the Zcash ETF launch, the conversion gave U.S. brokerage investors exchange-traded exposure to ZEC without requiring them to acquire and custody the cryptocurrency directly.

By Sept. 8, Grayscale reported that the fund’s assets under management had crossed $500 million, less than three weeks after its NYSE Arca debut. The sponsor said cumulative inflows since the exchange listing had surpassed $70 million at that point, excluding a separate affiliated transaction involving Digital Currency Group.

A Sept. 8 SEC disclosure shows DCG International Investments acquired approximately $100 million of ZCSH shares through an authorized participant in exchange for 85,705.32563297 ZEC.

Grayscale disclosed that DCG International is indirectly owned by Digital Currency Group, which is the indirect parent of the fund’s sponsor.

More recent figures reported by The Block put cumulative net inflows above $233 million since the Aug. 25 debut and net assets at roughly $890 million as of Sept. 17.

The same report placed cumulative ZCSH trading volume above $11 billion, citing fund-flow data available before Grayscale announced the split. The figures came from third-party reporting and were not included in Grayscale’s Sept. 18 SEC filing.

ZCSH price rose sharply before the split announcement

Market data from Stock Analysis shows ZCSH closed at $117.72 on Sept. 18, down 1.97% for the session. The fund had gained 16.01% on Sept. 17 after advancing 14.11% one day earlier.

ZCSH traded between $114.33 and $120.73 on Sept. 18, with just over one million shares changing hands. The price performance should not be treated as a direct reaction to the forward split because ZCSH tracks an underlying crypto asset that had already been moving sharply.

ZEC climbed above $1,500 during Sept. 18 trading before giving back part of the move. As crypto.news reported on ZEC’s recent rally, the token had risen sharply from August levels as institutional interest, positioning and network developments drew attention.

Paradigm co-founder Matt Huang disclosed the investment firm’s exposure to ZEC on Sept. 16, according to the same report. Huang described Zcash as a “private complement to Bitcoin,” while supporting continued developer funding.

The disclosure arrived during an existing ZEC rally, so the token’s full price move cannot be attributed to Paradigm’s purchase.

Grayscale’s fund carries its own regulatory distinction. The company states that ZCSH is not an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and therefore does not receive the same regulatory protections that apply to registered ETFs and mutual funds.

Zcash NU7 timetable adds another dated event for ZEC

Zcash development teams have set an Oct. 6 testnet activation target for the NU7 network upgrade, according to the ecosystem timeline.

Developers currently target Nov. 5 for mainnet activation, subject to testing and a final mainnet decision scheduled for Oct. 20.

As crypto.news reported in its NU7 update, the planned upgrade would reduce Zcash’s target block spacing from 75 seconds to 25 seconds.

The current package includes version 4 transaction deactivation and a Network Sustainability Mechanism configuration following recent governance polling.

Crypto.news reported on the Zcash holder vote, where nearly 2.4 million ZEC participated. Approximately 99.9% of participating ZEC supported reducing the block target to 25 seconds, while around 98.9% backed retaining the existing halving schedule.

The timetable still contains several conditions. Developers list Sept. 30 as the code-completion target, Oct. 6 for testnet activation and Oct. 20 for the final mainnet activation decision after reviewing testnet behavior. The Nov. 5 date therefore remains conditional on the technical review.

ZCSH shareholders face three split dates

For ZCSH holders, the SEC filing sets three separate dates. Sept. 28 is the record date, meaning shareholders recorded at the close of market qualify for the extra shares.

Sept. 29 is the payment date when the two additional shares per existing share are scheduled for distribution. Before trading begins on Sept. 30, the split becomes effective and ZCSH is scheduled to start trading on its adjusted share basis.

The SEC filing says NAV per share should be approximately one-third of its pre-split level, with the number of shares increasing proportionately and the ZCSH ticker remaining unchanged.