Zano has rolled back approximately a month of blockchain history after a vulnerability involving Gateway Addresses allowed unauthorized ZANO and Freedom Dollar to enter circulation, according to its core team. 

The Zano blockchain has been restarted at block 3,833,000, immediately before Hard Fork 6, which introduced the affected feature. The recovery requires participating nodes, miners, stakers, exchanges and other services to adopt the update, the team said Sunday. 

The rollback invalidates a month of legitimate transactions along with the unauthorized tokens, meaning transactions made during that period will no longer appear on the recovered chain and may need to be reconciled. It also cannot reverse payments already settled on other blockchains. The team said it is working to account for any losses and will publish a reimbursement and claims process. 

“Doing nothing meant unauthorized ZANO and fUSD in circulation without limit, diluting every holder and breaking the most basic promise a currency makes: a fixed supply,” said Zano’s head of marketing and growth Quinten van Welzen. “It would also tell every future attacker that exploited coins get to keep their value. No project survives that.” 

Zano identifies Gateway Address exploit 

Zano has not released a post-mortem at the time of publication, but confirmed the issue came from Gateway Addresses, a feature developed to make it easier for bridges, exchanges and payment services to integrate with Zano by letting them manage funds through a single account-style balance (similar to other blockchains). 

Before Gateway Addresses, Zano’s ordinary wallets tracked funds as separate transaction outputs (UTXOs), rather than a single account balance. Exchanges and other services had to scan the blockchain to identify incoming payments, track those outputs and select which ones to spend when processing withdrawals.

Zano launched in May 2019 as a layer-1 blockchain focused on private payments. Its standard private transactions conceal senders, receivers, transferred amounts and asset types. While it has a native token, ZANO, the blockchain also allows users to deploy and mint custom digital assets. Freedom Dollar (fUSD) is one such token that operates on the Zano blockchain. 

Related: Bitget CEO suspects North Korea behind $352M hack, citing IP clues 

“Restarting the chain from before Hard Fork 6 costs a month of history, and it costs trust, which we’ll have to earn back,” said van Welzen. 

“But it restores the supply everyone signed up for, and it leaves a path to rebuild. Which is better than 7 years of hard work left to die. We know it hurts. But not doing it would have hurt more.”

Magazine: THORChain under fire over Bitget, ETH evolves beyond blockchain: Hodler’s Digest

Cross-chain custody and censorship resistance collided with a high-profile breach narrative this week after Bitget publicly urged the decentralized liquidity protocol THORChain to block addresses allegedly tied to stolen funds. The dispute has reignited questions about what “decentralization” requires—and what it does not—when theft victims point to on-chain activity they believe is known to be malicious.

The push began after Bitget reported unauthorized transfers that it later revised upward, with the exchange attributing the suspected actor to North Korea based on preliminary investigative signals. In response, THORChain’s stance—whether it can meaningfully blacklist the relevant addresses, and whether it should—has become the center of an argument that is now spilling beyond technical governance and into the broader ethics of permissionless networks.

Key takeaways

• Bitget said unauthorized transfers rose from $351.6 million to $387.5 million, and later pointed to IP clues it believes link the activity to VPN infrastructure used by a North Korean hacking group.
• Bitget CEO Gracy Chen publicly asked THORChain to block addresses tied to the alleged theft connected to the Bybit-linked flow on THORChain.
• THORChain’s compliance position is unclear in practice because its ability to blacklist specific addresses has been questioned, including references to earlier admin-key changes.
• The debate is also exposing an asymmetry: decentralized funds may still be traceable after swaps, but protocols differ in whether they can or should exert address-level controls.
• While governance and security principles are at stake, THORChain has also faced criticism of its operational decentralization compared with networks like Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Bitget’s breach claims and the “block the addresses” demand

Bitget disclosed that it had detected “unauthorized transfers” tied to a security incident on September 25. According to Cointelegraph reporting, the exchange initially put the figure at $351.6 million, before updating it to $387.5 million. Bitget also stated that a preliminary investigation had linked IP addresses involved in the incident to VPN services associated with North Korean hacking operations, though the evidence was described as suggestive rather than definitive.

Bitget CEO Gracy Chen publicly argued that decentralized protocols should not serve as a destination for funds connected to theft. She said decentralization is a design principle, not a shield for facilitating known stolen assets, and urged THORChain to block addresses it believed were tied to the incident.

That framing matters because it reframes a typical “hack victim versus exchange” story into a “hack victim versus liquidity routing” story. If a stolen-flow path crosses a decentralized exchange-like venue, the conversation shifts from incident response alone to the network-level question of whether platforms can limit interaction with suspected addresses.

Why THORChain is at the center of the argument

As Bitget’s criticism spread, the broader context involved a prior major breach attributed to North Korean actors: the Bybit hack, reported by Cointelegraph as a $1.5 billion incident. Cointelegraph coverage also noted that funds from that attack were reportedly swapped on THORChain.

THORChain has often been described as a decentralized liquidity mechanism rather than a privacy mixer, and the general claim in the surrounding debate is that funds are still traceable after being swapped. That traceability is crucial: it gives victims and investigators a basis for arguing that specific on-chain participants should be restricted, even if the destination is a decentralized protocol.

However, what victims want—address-level blocking—may not align with how THORChain is technically or politically structured. The article notes that THORChain previously paused its chain quickly following its own $10.7 million hack in May. That detail highlights that the protocol can react decisively to security events, even as it faces scrutiny over whether it can selectively censor or restrict particular counterparties.

Can THORChain blacklist, and should it?

Whether THORChain can blacklist addresses is described as unclear in the reporting. The text points to a reference from February 2025, when THORChain said it had retired an admin key that would have provided the power to blacklist certain addresses.

This uncertainty is important for readers because it changes the nature of the request from “should a protocol do this?” to “can the protocol do this at all without undermining its own design?” Even if governance messaging supports compliance, protocol capabilities and key management can set hard boundaries on what is feasible.

Meanwhile, critics of address blocking argue that allowing decentralized protocols to respond to coercive demands would create a censorship precedent. The debate also includes an “ethics versus practicality” tension: victims emphasize harm reduction and reducing stolen-fund liquidity, while decentralization advocates emphasize permissionless access as an anti-tyranny safeguard.

At the same time, the article draws attention to concerns about THORChain’s decentralization level compared with Bitcoin or Ethereum. It cites the idea that THORChain does not match the governance model of the most decentralized networks and references past claims around administrative functionality. Those points are used to argue that the protocol’s permissionless claims may be overstated in practice.

For traders and builders, the operational reality is what matters most: if a protocol cannot enforce address-level exclusions, then users may still be exposed to flows they would rather avoid. If it can enforce them, then the network may face governance attacks, reputation risk, and the possibility of politically motivated address targeting. Either way, the outcome affects how participants assess risk and compliance expectations.

Market reaction and what to watch next

The controversy has not only sparked governance debate; it also appears to have attracted market attention. The article states that THORChain’s native token RUNE surged 50% over a week amid the publicity around the dispute.

Looking ahead, the key question is whether THORChain will clarify what address-level controls it can implement—if any—and what governance process would apply if requests from centralized exchanges are escalated. Readers should also watch how the underlying theft narrative evolves: Bitget’s attribution remains tied to preliminary investigation signals, and the strength of the evidence will influence whether future calls for restrictions gain wider traction.

In parallel, this episode underscores a broader industry challenge: even in decentralized systems, “who can stop stolen funds?” will increasingly depend on technical capabilities, governance choices, and the willingness of markets to treat permissionless routing as either a resilience feature or a liability.

South Korean industry participants have called for liquidity safeguards to form part of future won stablecoin rules after several foreign stablecoins recorded sharp price deviations on domestic exchanges.

News1 reported on Sept. 27 that market participants want regulators to examine initial circulating supply, issuance and redemption channels, market makers and controls for unusual trading. The proposals come as South Korea develops its second-stage digital asset legislation, which is expected to cover stablecoin issuance and circulation.

Recent trading has shown how limited exchange liquidity can push stablecoins far from the currencies they are designed to track. JPYC, PayPal USD and EURC each experienced abnormal price moves on South Korean won markets during September.

JPYC price spike puts stablecoin liquidity under scrutiny

JPY Coin, or JPYC, climbed as high as 37.6 won after Upbit introduced trading on Sept. 17. The yen-linked stablecoin had a reference value close to 8.8 won at the time, placing the exchange price at more than four times that level.

Yonhap reported that JPYC began trading around 12 won before climbing above 37 won as buying demand met limited available supply. Upbit later expanded supported deposit networks beyond Ethereum to include Kaia and Polygon, allowing more JPYC to reach the exchange. The token returned toward the 8-won range the following day.

Before trading started, Upbit had cited a JPYC reference price of 8.81 won. The exchange initially planned to support Ethereum deposits and withdrawals when announcing the listing.

In related coverage, crypto.news reported that Upbit had delayed JPYC trading by three hours on Sept. 17 while keeping the PYUSD schedule unchanged. The listing covered KRW, BTC and USDT markets. JPYC Upbit trading delayed three hours

PayPal USD experienced a smaller but still notable move on the same exchange. Upbit’s data shows PYUSD reached an all-time high of 1,760 won on Sept. 17 before falling toward the 1,360-won area.

News1 attributed the move to constrained supply during the first stage of trading. Unlike JPYC, PYUSD remained much closer to its dollar reference value, but the jump demonstrated how an exchange price can diverge when available sell-side liquidity is thin.

EURC surge adds another example from Bithumb

A separate price distortion appeared in Circle’s euro-backed EURC on Bithumb. EURC reached 7,860 won shortly after midnight on Sept. 14, compared with the previous closing price of 1,513 won. The move represented an increase of more than 400%, while overseas prices remained close to the euro’s converted value.

Bithumb’s official records show EURC had entered its won market on Aug. 28, not Sept. 14. The exchange listed the token with a reference price of 1,609 won and supported deposits and withdrawals through Ethereum.

The Sept. 14 move therefore occurred more than two weeks after the listing. Reports linked the spike to concentrated orders and shallow liquidity instead of a change in the euro backing the token. Approximately 60% of that day’s EURC volume was executed within a 15-minute period, according to reporting based on Bithumb trading data.

USDG experienced another abnormal move during the same period, reaching 3,048 won on Bithumb against a previous close near 1,358 won. The repeated episodes have prompted calls from industry participants for stablecoin market rules to address exchange liquidity separately from issuer reserves.

Won stablecoin rules could cover liquidity and redemption

Current debate over won-denominated stablecoins has focused heavily on who can issue them, minimum capital requirements and the assets used to back outstanding tokens.

Industry participants cited by News1 want the framework to extend into secondary-market trading. Suggested measures include requiring sufficient initial circulating supply before exchange trading begins and maintaining issuance and redemption channels that can respond when market demand changes.

Some participants have proposed requiring market makers or liquidity providers to maintain continuous buy and sell quotations. Other proposals include displaying deviations from a stablecoin’s reference value and restricting certain market orders when prices move unusually far from the underlying currency.

An industry official quoted by News1 said a won-backed token could still experience sharp volatility if demand rises suddenly while circulating supply remains inadequate. The official called for standards covering issuance, redemption, liquidity provision and responses to unusual market conditions.

Reserve requirements address a different part of the structure. Assets held by an issuer can support redemption at the designated value, while exchange prices are determined by available bids, offers and the ability to move tokens between venues or redeem them with the issuer.

South Korea’s Financial Services Commission has not announced final rules covering those proposed liquidity safeguards. The regulator has repeatedly cautioned that major parts of the second-stage digital asset framework remain under discussion.

South Korea targets November review of digital asset law

Work on the legislation is continuing as regulators and lawmakers negotiate rules for stablecoins and other digital assets.

An FSC official said on Sept. 22 that the Digital Asset Framework Act is expected to reach a National Assembly bill review subcommittee in November. Ten digital asset and stablecoin proposals are currently pending, while policymakers continue discussing a consolidated framework.

As crypto.news previously reported, the planned legislation covers digital asset issuance and distribution, including stablecoins, with regulators seeking to advance the second-stage framework during 2026. South Korea targets November review for crypto legislation

One unresolved question concerns the companies allowed to issue won-denominated stablecoins. The Bank of Korea has supported an initial bank-led structure, citing monetary policy, payment-system and financial-stability concerns.

The FSC said earlier this year that reports claiming stablecoin issuer structures had already been finalized were premature. In January, the regulator said discussions with other agencies were continuing and that key provisions had not yet been settled.

Crypto.news reported in July that the central bank continued to favor bank-led consortiums while lawmakers discussed the pending framework. Bank of Korea defends bank-first stablecoin plan

By August, the FSC said work remained underway on a government proposal for the second-stage Digital Asset Act. The regulator again cautioned that specific provisions, including ownership rules affecting crypto exchanges, had not been finalized.

South Korea’s September securities-token roadmap provides another indication that stablecoin policy remains unfinished. The FSC said future on-chain payment infrastructure could eventually connect tokenized securities with stablecoins, but later implementation stages will depend partly on pending stablecoin legislation.

Citi has found that 77% of financial institutions expect to use some form of tokenized collateral during 2026 as banks and market operators move blockchain-based settlement into live environments.

The bank’s Sept. 24 report, Digital Collateral: A Practical Reality, prepared with The ValueExchange, examines tokenized cash, money market funds, government bonds and other assets used for margin and financing. Citi said institutions are moving beyond testing toward practical collateral applications.

The report places the change against a costly problem in traditional markets. Large financial institutions manage substantial pools of collateral spread among custodians, clearing houses and counterparties, but settlement hours and fragmented systems can prevent assets from moving when needed.

Citi’s published findings say as much as $15 billion of collateral can remain idle at an individual institution, contributing to roughly $346 million in annual lost income for large firms. Citi’s Digital Collateral report

Citi sees tokenized collateral moving beyond pilots

According to the report, systemically important financial institutions manage an average of roughly $74 billion in collateral each day through around 65 custody locations.

About 25% of collateral can remain unremunerated or be posted as an extra buffer because existing infrastructure cannot always move assets when markets require them. The resulting idle balance can reach around $15 billion at a large institution.

Citi estimates that inefficient collateral deployment can cost a Tier 1 institution around $346 million annually in lost earnings. Its public report page identifies outdated settlement cutoffs and idle collateral among the main sources of that cost.

Earlier research from Nasdaq and The ValueExchange reached similar conclusions on the size of institutional collateral pools. Their survey placed average collateral under management near $74 billion and found roughly 25% generated no returns for its owner.

The earlier study found 52% of surveyed financial institutions planned to actively manage tokenized collateral by 2026. Citi’s newer report puts the share expecting to use some form of tokenized collateral at 77%, covering a wider set of potential applications.

Cash, government securities and money market funds feature among the main assets institutions are considering for digital collateral arrangements. Citi said tokenization can let firms transfer eligible assets without waiting for conventional settlement windows to reopen.

Tokenized repo is already handling institutional volume

Repurchase agreements have become one of the more developed institutional uses of blockchain-based collateral.

The Citi report estimates that roughly 5% of monthly repo volume is already being transacted in tokenized form. Repo markets allow institutions to obtain short-term funding by exchanging securities for cash while agreeing to reverse the transaction later.

Separate production data shows large transaction values are already moving through distributed-ledger repo systems. Broadridge said its Distributed Ledger Repo platform processed $8 trillion during July, with average daily volume reaching $365 billion.

As crypto.news reported, Broadridge’s platform allows firms to settle repo transactions while moving tokenized collateral without replacing their existing trading systems. Broadridge processed $8 trillion in blockchain repo volume

Citi’s report says tokenized collateral could address another constraint as derivatives and digital asset markets operate beyond normal banking hours. Traditional collateral transfers may depend on local market schedules, custodian availability and settlement cutoffs.

Around 60% of global margin remains in non-yielding cash, according to Citi’s published findings. The bank said tokenized money market funds could combine yield with faster transferability, allowing collateral to remain invested until closer to the point when it must be moved.

Such structures are already reaching regulated products. JPMorgan filed for its OnChain Liquidity-Token Money Market Fund, which uses blockchain technology to let investors submit transaction instructions connected to fund shares. The portfolio primarily consists of cash, short-term U.S. government securities and fully collateralized repurchase agreements.

DTCC prepares tokenized Treasuries for October launch

U.S. Treasury securities form another part of the institutional collateral market moving toward tokenized infrastructure.

The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation plans to launch its DTC Tokenization Service in October 2026. The service will allow eligible securities held at DTC to be represented in tokenized form while retaining their existing ownership rights and investor protections.

DTCC moved the project into production activity on July 15. Participating firms completed transactions involving U.S. Treasury repo, collateral pledges, securities lending, equity settlement and central counterparty margin workflows.

More than 30 financial and technology companies took part, including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Citadel Securities, Circle, Nasdaq, CME Group and State Street Investment Management.

The tests included tokenized U.S. Treasury assets used in delivery-versus-payment trades and repo transactions. DTCC said the production activity prepared its infrastructure for the scheduled October rollout.

In related coverage, crypto.news reported that the service will cover eligible DTC-custodied U.S. Treasuries, major index ETFs and certain U.S. equities. DTCC moves tokenized assets toward October launch

DTC received regulatory clearance for the project in December 2025 through a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission no-action letter. DTCC said the authorization applies to specified liquid securities, including U.S. Treasury bills, notes and bonds, Russell 1000 stocks and ETFs linked to major indexes.

Tokenization targets around-the-clock collateral movement

Citi’s report focuses heavily on the ability to move collateral outside conventional market hours.

Global derivatives and digital asset markets can continue moving while banks, custodians and settlement systems in certain regions are closed. Firms may respond by sending excess collateral in advance or maintaining larger liquidity buffers.

Citi said tokenization could support collateral transfers closer to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, reducing reliance on prefunding. The bank pointed to real-time margining and the movement of U.S. Treasuries through different time zones as practical examples already under development.

DTCC is working on a separate Collateral AppChain designed around the same issue. The platform is intended to give collateral providers, receivers, custodians and other market participants shared infrastructure for moving assets between different markets and blockchain networks.

Working with Chainlink, DTCC plans to support automated eligibility checks, valuations, margin calculations, collateral optimization and settlement on the platform. The Collateral AppChain is expected to enter production in the fourth quarter of 2026.

Crypto.news has reported similar institutional demand outside traditional clearing infrastructure. Aave plans an Avalanche-based market where eligible institutions could pledge tokenized financial assets and borrow Tether’s USA₮ stablecoin against them without selling the underlying positions. Aave plans tokenized asset collateral market on Avalanche

Citi acknowledged that legal frameworks, legacy systems and institutional risk controls remain obstacles to adoption. Its Sept. 24 report said financial institutions are increasingly moving from observing tokenized collateral to applying it in live treasury, margin and settlement processes.

Pump.fun has transferred another 47,994 SOL worth approximately $5.83 million to Kraken as on-chain trackers continue monitoring the launchpad’s treasury movements.

Lookonchain reported on Sept. 27 that the Solana-based platform moved the tokens to the centralized exchange roughly two hours before its update. The analytics service classified the transaction as another sale and estimated Pump.fun’s cumulative SOL sales at 5,236,623 tokens worth around $848 million.

At an estimated average price of $162 per SOL, the cumulative figure extends a pattern of large transfers from Pump.fun-linked wallets to Kraken. The latest blockchain movement confirms that the assets reached the exchange, although an exchange deposit by itself does not establish whether every token was sold after arrival.

SOL was trading near $121 on Sept. 27, according to CoinGecko market data, up roughly 1% over 24 hours and 11.6% over seven days.

The altcoin market has added more than $371 billion in capitalization since June 2026 as 87% of Binance-listed altcoins climbed above their 200-day moving averages, according to CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost.

Darkfost reported on Sept. 27 that TOTAL2, which tracks cryptocurrency market capitalization excluding Bitcoin but including Ethereum, had risen about 45% over the period. The analyst described the breadth of the recovery as a sign of strong bullish momentum while warning that the market may be approaching a more fragile stage.

Current TradingView data places TOTAL2 near $1.17 trillion. The index covers the combined market value of cryptocurrencies outside Bitcoin among the assets tracked by TradingView.

Altcoin rally reverses months of technical weakness

The 200-day moving-average data shows a sharp reversal from conditions seen only a few months ago.

Darkfost said roughly 87% of altcoins listed on Binance now trade above their respective 200-day moving averages. Only about 13% remain below the long-term trend indicator.

The figures were almost the reverse during the summer. About 84% of Binance-listed spot altcoins were trading below their 200-day moving averages, based on Darkfost’s CryptoQuant analysis.

At the time, the weakness had persisted for nearly eight months, making it the second-longest period since 2020 in which most Binance altcoins remained below the indicator. Bitcoin was trading near $59,464 and Ethereum around $1,588 when the June analysis was published.

By Sept. 19, the balance had already changed considerably. Darkfost reported that around 70% of Binance altcoins had moved back above their 200-day averages, while TOTAL3 — which excludes both Bitcoin and Ethereum — had crossed $800 billion for the first time in eight months.

The Sept. 27 reading raises that share to 87%, based on Darkfost’s latest calculation. The statistic describes market breadth across Binance-listed assets, not the percentage increase in individual token prices.

A 200-day moving average represents the average closing price of an asset over roughly 200 trading days. Traders commonly use the measure to assess whether an asset is trading above or below its longer-term price trend.

TOTAL2 has gained more than $371 billion since June

Capitalization data has moved alongside the improvement in individual altcoin trends.

Darkfost estimates that TOTAL2 has added more than $371 billion since June, representing a gain of around 45%. TOTAL2 includes Ethereum while excluding Bitcoin, making it one measure of how capital values assets outside the largest cryptocurrency.

TradingView currently puts TOTAL2 near $1.17 trillion. Its data shows the index up roughly 9.6% over the past week and more than 12% over the previous month.

TOTAL3, which removes both Bitcoin and Ethereum, is near $810 billion. TradingView defines TOTAL3 as the combined capitalization of its tracked cryptocurrencies excluding the two largest crypto assets.

The distinction is relevant because Ethereum contributes more than $330 billion to the current crypto market capitalization. TradingView’s total-market data puts ETH’s market value near $334 billion, behind Bitcoin at approximately $1.73 trillion.

Crypto.news reported earlier this month that perpetual-futures open interest tied to altcoins exceeded Bitcoin open interest for the first time since December 2024. Coinalyze data showed Bitcoin represented roughly 37% of the tracked perpetual positions at the time.

The derivatives reading showed leveraged activity increasing as several altcoins rallied. It measures outstanding futures positions, however, and does not determine whether traders are collectively positioned for further gains or declines.

Binance activity rises with the altcoin recovery

Exchange activity has accelerated during the same period. Darkfost reported on Sept. 15 that Binance recorded a seven-day average of roughly 31,800 altcoin deposit transactions. The figure was nearly four times July’s average of approximately 8,300 transactions.

Binance inflows, Coinbase’s average increased from roughly 2,200 transactions to 4,700 while Bybit reached around 2,700.

The CryptoQuant metric counts deposit transactions sent to exchanges rather than their dollar value. More deposits can indicate increased market participation because tokens are moving onto trading platforms, but the metric does not establish that the assets were subsequently sold.

Darkfost said at the time that rising exchange activity “could be tied to selling pressure,” while noting that selling pressure had not reached an unusually high level in the data he was examining.

TOTAL3 had gained more than $136 billion during the period covered by that Sept. 15 analysis. The newer TOTAL2 calculation captures a longer period beginning in June and includes Ethereum, so the two figures measure different market groups and time windows.

Binance remains an important venue for assessing altcoin activity because of the large number of spot markets available on the exchange. The 87% moving-average reading is based specifically on Binance-listed altcoins and should not be treated as a measure of every token traded globally.

Darkfost sees warning signs after the rapid advance

Despite the recovery, Darkfost said the latest market structure is beginning to resemble a period of “euphoria.”

The analyst’s warning is based partly on the speed and breadth of the move. A market in which almost nine out of ten measured altcoins trade above their 200-day averages represents a sharp change from August, when roughly 80% remained below the indicator.

Separate reporting based on Darkfost’s Sept. 27 analysis said altcoin exchange deposits have reached levels last observed near October 2025. The analyst has treated the rise as a possible warning that more assets are becoming available for trading, though deposits alone cannot establish selling activity.

The same analysis identified a bearish divergence in TOTAL2’s relative strength index. Under that setup, market capitalization continues advancing while the momentum indicator fails to strengthen at the same pace. Darkfost interpreted the divergence as a warning that upward momentum could be losing force.

His caution follows an earlier change in crypto market sentiment. Darkfost sentiment indicator briefly climbed above 89, entering what the analyst described as an “extreme greed” range before easing.

Bitcoin has continued to rally during the altcoin recovery. BTC held above $84,000 after climbing roughly 45% from July levels, while Binance recorded its largest daily Bitcoin net outflow since 2023.

By Sept. 26, Bitcoin was trading near $84,077 while the total crypto market capitalization stood close to $2.98 trillion, according to CoinGecko figures cited by crypto.news. Quant, Ethena and Bitway were among the strongest weekly performers in the top 100 cryptocurrencies.

Darkfost’s latest assessment does not provide a specific date or price level for a reversal. His Sept. 27 analysis describes the 87% reading, the $371 billion increase and the developing momentum signals as conditions to monitor after the sharp altcoin recovery.