Dragonfly managing partner Haseeb Qureshi has urged the Zcash community to wind down the protocol’s ZEC development fund after it expires under current rules in 2028, arguing the fund has grown large enough to cover remaining work while also becoming increasingly vulnerable to “politicization” as its size nears $100 million.

The proposal lands amid a broader internal debate over how (and whether) the development fund should be controlled—an issue that has intensified as the ZEC token’s rally boosted the fund’s value. At press time, ZecStats reported the fund held 63,962 Zcash (ZEC) tokens, worth roughly $95 million.

Key takeaways

• Haseeb Qureshi argues the Zcash development fund should be treated as a final “dev fund,” ending when it expires in 2028.
• Based on ZecStats data, the fund’s balance is about $95 million and sits outside circulation until governance disburses it.
• Supporters say the fund is crucial for sustained development amid fast-evolving threats, including AI and quantum risks.
• The community is split not only on whether the fund should continue, but also on whether control should move toward token-holder voting.
• Critics including Maxime Desalle argue that ending the fund could eliminate governance disputes and potential security or dependency risks.

Why Qureshi wants the dev fund to end in 2028

Qureshi’s position, laid out in a Friday post on X, is focused on timing, size, and governance risk. He said the current development fund should be the last one, since it is already large enough to fund remaining Zcash work before the fund expires under existing rules in 2028.

In his view, however, the more the fund grows, the more it risks being drawn into political dynamics rather than purely technical decision-making. That concern is particularly salient as the fund approaches a value threshold of about $100 million, according to the ZecStats-reported balance.

For investors and builders, the core question is whether a large, semi-autonomous treasury mechanism improves continuity for development—or whether it creates governance friction that can slow priorities or erode long-term consensus.

How the Zcash development fund works

The ZEC development fund is designed as a protocol development allocation that accrues 0.1875 ZEC per block. Under the NU6 upgrade, that amount is described as representing 12% of the block subsidy. The fund’s holdings are kept outside normal token circulation, only becoming available when governance processes authorize disbursement.

Because it is built into the protocol’s block subsidy economics, the fund’s size is not simply a matter of community fundraising—it naturally expands with ongoing block production until its rules expire. That structural feature is part of why the current debate has intensified: a rising ZEC price increases the dollar value of locked assets without changing the number of tokens held.

A split on governance: token voting versus hybrid councils

Beyond the timing of any wind-down, Qureshi also challenged how the fund should be governed. He argued that control should not shift to “pure token holder voting,” while still supporting a partial approach in which token holders elect temporary councils.

Paradigm founder Matt Huang supported the broader idea of avoiding purely token-holder-driven control, arguing in a Wednesday post on X that pure token governance may introduce “unpredictability” and reduce long-term trust in Zcash as a monetary asset. Huang’s proposed alternative is a hybrid governance model that combines multiple forms of oversight rather than relying exclusively on token-weighted voting.

These arguments reflect a common tension in protocol treasuries: token-weighted systems can align governance with market incentives, but they may also be vulnerable to volatility-driven shifts in voting behavior. Hybrid systems, by contrast, aim to stabilize decision-making while still preserving a pathway for community influence.

Calls to eliminate the fund altogether

Not everyone agrees the fund should be preserved—even temporarily. Maxime Desalle, an investment analyst at Winklevoss Capital, suggested in a Thursday X post that the Zcash community should “completely get rid” of the development fund. He framed the elimination of the mechanism as a way to resolve governance disputes outright.

Desalle previously argued that the fund could hurt Zcash’s security and recreate the kinds of dependencies and bureaucracies that, in his view, many welfare-state systems face. While his critique focuses on governance structure, it also implies a more fundamental concern: that continuously accumulating value into a locked treasury can create incentives to capture decision-making rather than improve protocol resilience.

On the other side, Zcash founder Zooko Wilcox emphasized the historical role of development governance. In an earlier post on Sept. 1, he pointed to the Zcash Community Grants Committee as a major reason Zcash “has survived and grown to where it is today.” Later, on Sept. 14, Wilcox clarified that the committee accounts for only 40% of the development fund—an important detail for readers trying to map how much of the treasury is actually tied to grants versus other protocol-linked allocations.

What Zcash holders should watch next

The immediate uncertainty is whether Qureshi’s “final dev fund” framing will gain traction, and—separately—what governance model the community ultimately favors for any remaining disbursements before 2028. With the fund’s dollar value near $100 million based on ZecStats, governance decisions are likely to become more contentious, making the next proposals and voting outcomes crucial for anyone tracking Zcash’s long-term development runway.

Bitcoin price surged more than 5% on Sep. 18, breaking above $80,000 as a 4-hour trend reversal and concentrated short liquidations accelerated the recovery from $75,560.

Bitcoin price rebounds from $75,560

According to data from crypto.news, Bitcoin (BTC) price was trading near $80,600 at the time of writing after opening the daily session at $76,417. The 5.49% advance reversed most of the losses recorded during the earlier decline from the $80,000 area.

The move followed a drop to about $75,560, Bitcoin’s lowest level this month. Buyers first stabilized the price around $76,000 before pushing it through the $78,000 and $80,000 levels in two rapid advances.

Bitcoin briefly touched $81,258 during the rally but pulled back below $81,000, showing that sellers remain active near the upper end of its recent range. Even so, the daily candle remains strongly positive, with its real body covering more than $4,000.

The recovery also returned Bitcoin to the range it held before the Sep. 15 sell-off. Price must now remain above $80,000 to turn the former resistance level into support and reduce the risk of another retreat into the high-$70,000 area.

The rally came after bearish positioning increased during Bitcoin’s fall below $76,000. The supplied market data showed that forced buying from short liquidations helped speed up the rebound once the price began clearing nearby resistance.

Daily indicators support the Bitcoin breakout

Bitcoin has moved above all four moving averages displayed on the daily chart. The 20-day simple moving average sits at $78,150, making it the closest dynamic support following the breakout.

The 50-day SMA stands at $72,498, while the 200-day and 100-day averages are near $70,432 and $67,976, respectively. Bitcoin’s position above those longer-term averages keeps the wider recovery structure intact despite the volatility recorded during September.

The daily relative strength index rose to 62.93, above its moving average of 57.38. An RSI above 50 shows that upward momentum has strengthened, while the current reading remains below the commonly watched overbought level of 70.

Bitcoin is therefore gaining momentum without showing an extreme daily RSI reading. A move above 70 would signal stronger buying pressure, but it could also increase the risk of a short-term pullback if price reaches resistance near $82,000.

The daily structure still leaves Bitcoin below the local May high and the upper boundary of its recent trading range. Bulls need a daily close above approximately $82,000 to establish a higher high and provide stronger evidence that the September correction has ended.

4-hour Bitcoin chart flips bullish

Bitcoin’s 4-hour chart recorded a bullish Supertrend shift during the latest advance. The indicator now places trend support near $77,828, while price has also cleared the previous bearish Supertrend line around $78,597.

A 4-hour close above that former resistance strengthens the breakout because it shows that buyers held control beyond the initial price spike. The $78,600 area could now act as support during any retest.

The Aroon indicator also shows a sharp change in short-term momentum. Aroon Up reached 100%, while Aroon Down fell to 14.29%, indicating that the period’s most recent high occurred much later than its latest low.

Bitcoin remains exposed to a cooling period after its near-vertical 4-hour advance. A pullback that holds between $78,600 and $80,000 would preserve the new bullish structure, while a drop below the Supertrend support at $77,828 would weaken it.

A close below $77,800 could send Bitcoin back toward $76,000 and the monthly low near $75,560. Losing that low would invalidate the immediate recovery setup and reopen the path toward the daily moving-average cluster between $72,500 and $70,400.

Liquidation map puts $82,000 in focus

CoinGlass’ 24-hour Bitcoin liquidation heatmap shows several leveraged-position clusters above the current price. The nearest large concentrations appear around $81,500 and $82,000, with additional liquidity extending toward $84,000.

Leveraged short positions can face forced closure when Bitcoin rises into those zones. Such liquidations create market buy orders, which may add momentum if price breaks above $81,500 with sufficient volume.

The heatmap also shows liquidity below the market around $80,000 and $79,300. Larger bands are visible between roughly $76,000 and $77,500, making that region a possible target if Bitcoin fails to hold its breakout.

Liquidity concentrations do not guarantee that price will reach a given level. They identify areas where leveraged positions may be vulnerable, making volatility more likely when Bitcoin approaches them.

The immediate bullish path requires a break above the intraday high at $81,258, followed by a sustained move through the $81,500–$82,000 liquidity zone. A successful breakout would leave approximately $84,000 as the next visible area of concentrated liquidations.

Analyst sees descending-channel breakout

Crypto analyst Batman said Bitcoin had broken out of a descending-channel formation similar to an earlier setup that preceded a 24% gain. His chart compared the latest September structure with a channel that formed before Bitcoin’s August advance.

“$BTC just broke the same descending channel setup that led to a 24% move last time,” the analyst wrote.

Batman said the latest breakout had further continuation potential, although the earlier 24% move does not guarantee that Bitcoin will repeat the same performance. Confirmation still depends on whether the price can hold above the channel and clear the nearby $82,000 resistance.

For U.S. traders, the next test will also depend on how the rally holds through the next session, when deeper spot and derivatives liquidity can either confirm the breakout or expose it as a short-covering move. Until Bitcoin records a daily close above $82,000, the charts support a short-term bullish reversal rather than a confirmed breakout from the wider range.

Visa and Mastercard ATM cash withdrawals spanning roughly 19 years are part of a class-action lawsuit settlement totaling $167.5 million. 

The case, known as Burke v. Visa Inc., involves independent ATMs often found in convenience stores, gas stations, grocery stores, hotels, and bars — non-bank locations that often levy surcharges on cash withdrawals.

Here’s who is eligible for a cash payment as part of the settlement.

Read more: Just received a settlement? 5 smart ways to use the money.

What is the class-action lawsuit about?

The legal complaint claimed that cardholders nationwide paid excessive ATM fees that were not fully reimbursed, violating federal and state antitrust laws. The lawsuit covers ATM cash withdrawals over nearly two decades, from Oct. 24, 2007, to Aug. 14, 2026.

Court documents allege that independent ATM operators were not allowed to charge cardholders a lower fee by using card networks other than Visa and Mastercard. 

“If permitted to do so, ATM operators would have an economic incentive to pass on to customers the benefit of using the lower-cost, higher net revenue ‘rival networks’ in the form of lower, or discounted, access fees,” the claim stated.  

Visa (V) and Mastercard (MA) opted to settle the case without admitting liability. 

The settlement also covers separate, state-specific classes of claimants in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Michigan.

Who is eligible to receive the settlement?

Eligibility includes claimants who used a Visa or Mastercard to withdraw cash from a deposit account using an independent ATM (not owned by a financial institution) in the U.S. and were charged a surcharge or access fee that the cardholder’s bank did not fully reimburse. 

Transactions must have been made between Oct. 24, 2007, and Aug. 14, 2026.  

How much will the settlement pay?

The $167.5 million settlement fund will pay attorneys’ fees and expenses, administrative costs, taxes, and payouts to eligible class members. The amount of cash payments to eligible cardholders will depend on the number of valid claims filed. 

Deadline to file a claim

Claim forms may be submitted at www.nonbankatmsurchargesettlement.com. The submission deadline is Feb. 10, 2027. You may also exclude yourself or object to the settlement at the same web address.

Payments will be issued following a final court hearing in early 2027.

LSEG has outlined plans for 24/5 trading, a digital securities depository, tokenized equities, and new infrastructure involving Kraken and HSBC.

LSEG plans to connect trading and tokenized settlement

The European Blockchain Convention’s Day 2 media briefing attributed the plans to Darko Hajdukovic of London Stock Exchange Group, who discussed the projects during a panel on institutional digital-market infrastructure.

“In the first half of next year we move to a 24/5 trading cycle, LSEG24. We’re building a digital securities depository, partnering with Kraken to list on it, and building tokenised equity tokens. We’ve also signed an MOU with HSBC on an interoperable link,” Hajdukovic said.

The comments indicate that LSEG is working across several parts of the trading process rather than developing a single tokenization product. Trading, depository services, listings and connections with other financial institutions each address a separate part of the market.

Hajdukovic referred to the first half of next year while speaking at the 2026 conference, placing the planned LSEG24 move in the first half of 2027. The media copy did not provide a specific launch date or identify which securities would initially trade through the system.

LSEG’s digital securities depository would support the recording and settlement of eligible assets, while its work with Kraken could bring a crypto-native platform into the listing process. The agreement with HSBC concerns an interoperable link, according to the supplied remarks.

Tokenized equities are moving into regulated markets

LSEG’s plans arrive as exchanges and brokers test different ways to connect conventional shares with blockchain networks. Some products represent beneficial interests in securities held by a custodian, while others provide only contractual exposure to the price of an underlying stock.

As crypto.news previously reported, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has said tokenized stocks should hold real securities rather than operate as synthetic price-tracking instruments. Coinbase introduced Base-native tokens linked to Apple, Nvidia, Meta and Alphabet for eligible non-U.S. customers in August.

Ownership structure remains important because a blockchain token does not automatically provide voting rights, dividends or a direct legal claim against the issuing company. Product terms, custody arrangements and the official shareholder register determine what an investor owns.

Kraken has already moved beyond simple stock-token trading. In September, the exchange introduced xStocks yield vaults for products linked to the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, Invesco QQQ Trust and Nvidia.

The vaults allow customers to deposit selected xStocks and earn returns generated through automated strategies. Kraken charges a 25% performance fee, which it deducts before displaying the estimated annual percentage yield, according to the exchange’s documentation.

LSEG did not say whether its planned tokenized equities would use the same legal model as xStocks or Coinbase’s products. Hajdukovic also did not identify which blockchain would support the tokens during the quoted portion of the panel.

Always-on markets create a settlement challenge

Nadine Teychenne of Citi told the same conference panel that blockchain infrastructure can give institutions a real-time record of transactions and programmable assets.

“What’s most interesting is the real-time, always-on nature of the blockchain single source of truth, but also the programmability of assets, which we’re starting to see with tokenised money market funds,” Teychenne said.

Citi has worked on blockchain systems since 2015, she added, including wallet infrastructure and internal tokenized deposits that can move client funds globally at any time.

Extended trading does not by itself provide round-the-clock access to bank money. Securities may trade during the night or on weekends while the banking rails used to fund and settle transactions remain closed or operate under limited hours.

A September analysis of weekend dollar funding gaps found that always-open tokenized markets can face liquidity pressure when traditional dollar settlement systems are unavailable. The problem becomes more relevant when a platform promises continuous trading but relies on banking partners to process cash movements.

LSEG launched its Digital Settlement House earlier in 2026 to support transactions involving commercial bank money, securities, and digital assets. According to LSEG, the service permits 24/7 transfers and uses synchronized settlement to reduce the period during which either party faces completion risk.

U.S. markets are considering similar changes

For American investors, LSEG’s roadmap sits alongside efforts in the United States to extend equity-trading hours and establish rules for tokenized securities.

U.S. platforms have traditionally relied on overnight trading venues outside standard exchange hours, but exchange operators have pursued longer sessions in response to international demand. Any extended schedule still requires market surveillance, resilient clearing systems, and adequate liquidity during hours when participation may be lower.

Tokenized shares raise a separate regulatory question in the United States. A product backed by a security can remain subject to federal securities law even when its ownership record or transfer process uses a blockchain.

SEC treatment can depend on whether a token represents the actual security, a beneficial interest held through an intermediary, or a derivative that tracks its price. Transfer-agent records, custody terms and shareholder rights therefore matter alongside the technology used to move the token.

At the Barcelona panel, Coco Chen of the Association for Financial Markets in Europe asked participants how institutional market infrastructure had developed in recent years. Teychenne said Citi was already moving client money through live internal tokenized deposits, while Hajdukovic listed LSEG24, the depository project, tokenized equity products and the HSBC connection as LSEG’s next projects.

A BaFin official has warned that centralized EU crypto supervision could place extra burdens on firms while reducing flexibility in applying MiCA rules.

Centralized MiCA supervision could reduce flexibility

The European Blockchain Convention’s Day 2 briefing attributed the warning to Stephan Mögelin of Germany’s Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, or BaFin, during a panel on proposed changes to the Markets in Crypto-Assets framework.

Mögelin said centralized supervisors could still depend on knowledge held by national authorities, particularly when dealing with the characteristics of individual markets.

“What we’ve seen, for example, in the application of EMIR, is that with a centralised supervisor, one might assume the application and understanding of specific provisions also becomes somewhat centralised,” he said.

According to Mögelin, centralization could leave crypto-asset service providers with less flexibility when regulators apply individual provisions. Moving responsibility after companies have already completed national authorization procedures could also create additional work.

“Market participants and clients should decide what they consider beneficial, because these firms currently go through an authorisation process, and shifting responsibility to a centralised entity might add burdens regardless of the outcome.”

Under MiCA, a crypto-asset service provider can obtain authorization from a national regulator and use the resulting passport to operate across the European Economic Area. A centralized model would transfer some supervisory responsibility from national authorities to an EU-level body.

MiCA licensing has divided access to the EU market

MiCA has created a common licensing structure for exchanges, custodians and other crypto service providers, although national regulators continue to process applications and supervise licensed firms.

In July, Ripple secured its MiCA authorization from Luxembourg’s Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier. The approval permits the company to offer regulated crypto payment services across 30 European Economic Area countries.

As crypto.news previously reported, Ripple paired the crypto-asset service provider license with an electronic money institution license. The combination supports payment services involving crypto assets and stablecoins under the company’s European structure.

MiCA’s passport system can reduce the need for separate approvals in every participating country, but Mögelin’s remarks point to the trade-off between consistent supervision and national discretion. Firms may receive access across the region through one authorization while remaining dependent on how the regulator in their home jurisdiction applies the rules.

The EBC media briefing said the MiCA consultation had been extended to Sep. 30. During the panel, moderator Tommaso Astazi of Blockchain for Europe asked which areas of the framework required changes and whether supervision should move toward a centralized structure.

Private law remains incomplete for crypto assets

Mögelin identified the legal treatment of crypto assets outside financial-services regulation as another unresolved issue.

“From a supervisory and risk-management perspective, what we’ve seen so far is that MiCA and other European frameworks provide only a regulatory framework for financial services.”

“What’s still missing in most member states is a private law framework for specific crypto assets.”

Private law governs questions such as ownership, transfers, contractual claims and the treatment of assets when an intermediary fails. A financial-services license can regulate the conduct of an exchange or custodian without resolving every question about who legally owns a token or how creditors should treat it during insolvency.

Mögelin said the consultation was considering whether a European-level private-law framework could prevent another layer of fragmentation. Without common treatment, the same token could fall under different ownership or insolvency rules depending on the member state handling the dispute.

Similar ownership questions have emerged around tokenized securities. A token can record a transaction on a blockchain, but the legal register, custody agreement and applicable securities law determine whether the holder owns a share, a beneficial interest or only a contractual claim.

The United Kingdom is addressing related questions outside MiCA. In September, the House of Lords backed a digital asset strategy amendment by 194 votes to 138.

The proposed strategy would cover crypto assets, stablecoins, tokenized securities and digital settlement systems. The Treasury would have 12 months after Royal Assent to publish the strategy, although the bill must still pass through the House of Commons before the requirement becomes law.

E-money tokens could support tokenized settlement

During the BaFin panel, Mögelin also discussed the role of e-money tokens, a MiCA category covering crypto assets designed to maintain their value by referencing one official currency.

He said the convergence of crypto service providers and conventional financial institutions had increased interest in using e-money tokens inside traditional market infrastructure. One possible use involves supplying the cash side of transactions in tokenized securities.

Tokenized trades require both the asset and payment legs to settle. If one side moves through blockchain infrastructure while the other remains dependent on conventional bank transfers, the parties can face delays or completion risk.

Mögelin said regulators were discussing whether services involving e-money tokens could extend to credit or lending. In his account, such services could increase efficiency for companies operating across both crypto assets and tokenized financial instruments.

U.S. regulators face a related division between securities oversight and payment regulation. A tokenized stock generally falls within securities rules, while the stablecoin used to settle the trade can raise separate questions involving reserves, redemption rights, banking relationships and federal or state supervision.

Mögelin’s comments did not call for removing national authorities from the MiCA system. He said even a centralized supervisor could benefit from member-state expertise, while firms and their clients should assess whether transferring authorization responsibilities would provide enough value to offset the operational burden.

Democratic leaders sound the alarm on “terribly flawed” bill

But theirs are old stories, already told and retold in every conceivable media, and often, effectively, by women. Wuornos was, of course, most famously portrayed by Charlize Theron, in writer-director Patty Jenkins’ career-making, Oscar-winning 2003 film also titled Monster. Isabelle Huppert stars as Báthory in The Blood Countess, a new feature by German experimental cinema legend Ulrike Ottinger, which is earning praise on the festival circuit for its strangeness and sense of humor. Meanwhile, on TV, creator Liz Meriwether just gave us Furious—another story of female rage, female repression, and yes, even a (fictional) female serial killer. While Krieps is mesmerizing in Monster and frequent Murphy production designer Matthew Flood Ferguson has outdone himself with lavishly suffocating Gilded Age interiors, Furious is the superior show because it takes “being a woman is hard” as the given it is rather than as the endpoint of many repetitive episodes. It has dark, lived-in comedy and real stakes, posing the question of what can realistically be done about systemic misogyny and the anger over it that stains women’s lives.