UpGate

Tag: Negative

  • BaFin Denies MiCAR License to Bitcoin Group SE’s Futurum Bank, Bitcoin.de Faces Uncertainty

    BaFin Denies MiCAR License to Bitcoin Group SE’s Futurum Bank, Bitcoin.de Faces Uncertainty

    BaFin Denies MiCAR Authorization to Bitcoin Group Subsidiary

    Germany’s financial regulator, BaFin, has refused to grant MiCAR authorization to futurum bank AG, the subsidiary of Bitcoin Group SE that operates the bitcoin.de trading platform. The decision was announced by the company on October 6, 2026, following a review process that began on June 27, 2025.

    Prolonged Wait Ends in Rejection

    The application had been under consideration by BaFin for over 15 months. The rejection comes at a difficult time for bitcoin.de, which has seen trading largely suspended since June 12, 2026. This regulatory setback transforms what was a temporary operational pause into a more significant structural challenge.

    Banking License Insufficient for Crypto Services

    Futurum bank AG already possesses a banking license, but this was not enough to satisfy regulatory requirements for offering cryptocurrency services under the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCAR) regulation. BaFin’s refusal to grant the specific MiCAR authorization signifies an end to the regulator’s previous leniency towards the subsidiary’s crypto operations.

    Company Pursues Alternatives Amidst Setback

    Moritz Eckert, CEO of Bitcoin Group SE, described the decision as a “blow” but indicated that the company had anticipated the possibility of a refusal and is actively exploring alternative strategies.

    Bitcoin Group SE’s stock experienced a decline of approximately 3-5% on the day of the announcement.

    Financial Performance and Future Outlook

    For the first half of 2026, Bitcoin Group SE reported revenues of €1.59 million, with an EBITDA of negative €3.25 million for the same period. The company projects a continued decrease in full-year revenue and anticipates its EBITDA to remain in negative territory.

    Bitcoin Group SE stated its intention to collaborate with regulated German partners to introduce a new trading model via a technologically updated bitcoin.de app. This new structure would involve a division of responsibilities, with one partner managing trading operations and another overseeing custody services. The company is aiming for a rollout within weeks.

    Customer assets are reported to be secure throughout this transition period.

    The planned revamped platform was initially envisioned as an expansion, with provisions for supporting over 100 crypto assets and incorporating advanced features to enhance user engagement and trading capabilities.

    Key Factors to Monitor

    The timeline of events highlights the critical nature of the situation: the application was submitted on June 27, 2025, trading suspension began on June 12, 2026, and the refusal was issued on October 6, 2026. The possession of a German banking license did not exempt futurum bank from the requirement of obtaining a dedicated crypto authorization.

    With current financial figures showing €1.59 million in revenue and a negative €3.25 million EBITDA, each additional month of disrupted operations exacerbates the company’s financial challenges.

    Several key developments will be closely watched: the timely launch of the revamped bitcoin.de app within the targeted weeks; the identification and commitment of regulated German partners for trading and custody; and the impact of the new model on the company’s financial performance, specifically whether it stabilizes revenue or merely slows its decline.

  • US Spot Bitcoin ETFs See Outflows, Bitcoin Price Drops Below $86,000

    US Spot Bitcoin ETFs See Outflows, Bitcoin Price Drops Below $86,000

    US spot Bitcoin ETFs experienced net outflows totaling $89.9 million on Monday, reversing previous inflows and coinciding with a drop in Bitcoin’s price below $86,000. This price level is approximately 32% below Bitcoin’s all-time high.

    Bitcoin traded at $85,559 at the time of publication, according to CoinGecko, significantly lower than its record high of $126,080 set on October 6, 2025. The recent outflows have contributed to a 5.8% decrease in cumulative net inflows into US spot Bitcoin ETFs, which have fallen from a peak of around $61.3 billion to $57.7 billion as of Monday, according to data from SoSoValue.

    Prior to Monday’s reversal, Bitcoin ETFs had attracted approximately $293 million over the preceding two October trading sessions, with total trading volume reaching $2.18 billion, SoSoValue reported.

    Broader ETF Market Performance

    The performance of other cryptocurrency-related ETFs on Monday presented a mixed picture. US spot Ether ETFs recorded net outflows of roughly $51 million, extending a streak of daily outflows to five consecutive trading days, during which the funds have lost a combined $206 million. Cumulative net inflows for Ether ETFs currently stand at $13.8 billion.

    Among other altcoin ETFs, Solana (SOL) funds saw net outflows of $9.3 million on Monday. Zcash (ZEC) funds also experienced outflows, amounting to $3.6 million. XRP ETFs, however, reported no net flows on Monday, following $3.3 million in outflows on Friday.

    Interpreting Market Signals

    These outflows and price movements are being observed as potential signals of shifting investor sentiment or market dynamics. However, the exact reasons behind these outflows are not detailed, and interpreting their long-term implications remains uncertain. The data reflects a snapshot of market activity on a specific Monday, and the broader context of market volatility and investor behavior contributes to the inherent unpredictability of future price movements.

    It is important to note that the specific dates for ‘Monday’ and ‘Friday’ were not provided in the source material. While these figures offer insights into recent trading activity, they do not definitively predict future market trends.

    Why This Matters

    The materials describe a narrow update: US spot Bitcoin ETFs saw net outflows of $89.9 million. The exact date of ‘Monday’ and ‘Friday’ is not specified, and these figures offer insights into recent trading activity but do not definitively predict future market trends.

  • Brandt: XRP Trails Monero, Solana, Ether Despite $2.16 Target

    Brandt: XRP Trails Monero, Solana, Ether Despite $2.16 Target

    Veteran Trader Sets New XRP Target Amid Supply Concerns

    Veteran trader Peter Brandt has set a new price target for XRP at $2.16, but cautioned that significant “overhead supply” could impede its ascent. In a recent post on X, Brandt also expressed a preference for the charting patterns of Monero, Solana, and Ether over XRP.

    Brandt shared a weekly XRP chart showing the cryptocurrency trading around $1.51. He identified a potential cup and handle pattern, which on a larger timeframe could represent the right shoulder of an inverse head and shoulders formation. Applying what he terms a “measured move” calculation, he projected the height of this pattern upward, arriving at the $2.16 target. This would represent a gain of approximately 43% from the price point on his chart.

    However, Brandt was quick to temper expectations, noting that “Targets or objectives are not sacred.” He elaborated, “Charts often fail to deliver what we first identify and morph into something else.”

    Overhead Supply Poses Challenge for XRP

    The trader pointed to the “poorly formed and abbreviated” nature of the potential right shoulder as an indication that the pattern may require more time to develop. His primary concern, however, lies in the price levels above XRP’s current trading range. Many investors who purchased XRP during the 2025 rally, when it traded between roughly $2 and $3.70, may be looking to sell as the price approaches their break-even points.

    “Note in XRP there is a TON of overhead supply to work through,” Brandt stated. “This is a negative for XRP.”

    Brandt Focuses Solely on Price Action

    Brandt, who has previously referred to XRP as a “fool coin,” reiterated his focus on price action rather than fundamental analysis. “I could care less about the fundamentals of XRP or any other coin than BTC,” he wrote. “XRP fans, please don’t take this as an offense. I trade price. Price is all that matters to me.”

    Preferred Altcoin Charts

    Brandt also compared XRP’s chart performance against four other cryptocurrencies over the same period. “Of these, my favorite by far is XMR,” he commented, referring to Monero. “I do not know the fundamental narrative. I do not need to know.”

  • ETH Liquidity Plummets 45% Below Bitcoin

    ETH Liquidity Plummets 45% Below Bitcoin

    Ethereum Price Prediction Dims as Liquidity Gap Widens Against Bitcoin

    Ethereum’s price outlook is facing headwinds as its order-book depth has fallen to between 35% and 45% of Bitcoin’s. While Ethereum is currently trading at $2,725, a modest 1% increase over the past 24 hours, Bitcoin has climbed to $86,300, up 1.4%. The concern is not merely a decline in Ethereum’s liquidity, but rather that Bitcoin’s order books have simultaneously deepened while Ethereum’s have remained stagnant.

    Analysis from CoinGecko, examining eight major centralized exchanges, indicates that Ethereum’s median depth stands at $13 million to $14 million. In contrast, Bitcoin’s median depth is $29 million on bids and $37 million on asks, with this depth measured approximately 0.15% from the mid-price. Binance leads for both digital assets, while MEXC is noted as a significant outlier with a depth of around $450,000.

    The broader cryptocurrency market, however, is showing resilience. Total market capitalization has risen by approximately 1% to $3.01 trillion, and Bitcoin briefly touched the $87,000 mark. For Ethereum, this liquidity deficit becomes particularly critical during periods of heightened volatility, when larger trades are forced through thinner order books. Current price levels will be a key determinant in whether its recovery can sustain momentum.

    Ethereum is hovering near $2,725, but remains below the significant resistance level of $2,775. Immediate support is found around $2,645, and while the trading tape shows constructive signs, it has yet to deliver a decisive signal.

    Bitcoin’s immediate challenge lies in overcoming the resistance zone between $87,000 and $87,400. A sustained breach of this level could bolster the market’s target of $90,000 for BTC. Ethereum has lagged behind, and its own potential for upside hinges on maintaining the $2,645 support and reclaiming $2,775, which would then pave the way for $3,000 to become a realistic objective.

    While the market’s attention has been largely fixed on Bitcoin’s resistance test, Ethereum’s leverage and spot demand offer an alternative perspective on the durability of its price gains.

    The bullish scenario for ETH involves holding the $2,645 support, breaking through $2,775, and demonstrating improved relative strength, bringing the $3,000 mark into view. The base case anticipates consolidation around $2,700 as Bitcoin’s breakout attempt sets the market’s tone. A decisive loss of $2,645 would invalidate the recovery narrative and increase downside risk.

    It is important to note that thin order-book depth can amplify price movements in either direction. Traders are advised to monitor these key levels closely.

    Ethereum’s current recovery offers holders a reason to remain invested. However, the reduced liquidity on its order books limits the ease with which large transactions can be executed, especially during volatile market conditions. If the current upward momentum falters below resistance, investors seeking exposure might look beyond established assets, a trade-off that does not guarantee superior returns.

  • XRP and Solana ETF Weekly Net Inflows Show Significant Decline

    XRP and Solana ETF Weekly Net Inflows Show Significant Decline

    Weekly net inflows for spot XRP and Solana Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) experienced a substantial decrease, with XRP ETFs seeing a 94% drop and Solana ETFs declining by over 97% week-over-week. The week in question concluded around October 1st, 2023.

    XRP ETFs recorded $4.74 million in net inflows for the week, a sharp contrast to the $75.59 million attracted during the preceding five-day trading period. The week began with investors pouring nearly $4 million into XRP ETFs. However, demand appeared to wane as SoSoValue data shows $0.00 in net inflows on Tuesday and Wednesday. While inflows resumed on October 1st with $4.07 million, the week concluded with $3.28 million in net outflows on Friday. Despite this significant decline in weekly inflows, XRP ETFs extended their streak of consecutive positive net inflow weeks to 12.

    Solana ETFs also faced a considerable reduction in investor interest. After attracting $188.22 million in the previous week, their net inflows for the reported week fell to $2.43 million, marking a decline of over 97%. The week started strong for Solana ETFs, with $12.70 million in inflows on Monday and an additional $5.44 million on Tuesday. Investor sentiment shifted mid-week, with $11.10 million in net inflows on Wednesday and $5.91 million on Thursday. Friday saw a modest $1.30 million in net inflows, helping to maintain a positive weekly total.

    During this period, the underlying assets also experienced price volatility. XRP faced resistance at $1.55 and dipped to $1.45 on Friday amid a market-wide correction, though it has since recovered to trade around the $1.50 level. Solana (SOL) saw its price rise above $123 mid-week, but a Friday crash pushed it below $118. As of press time, SOL has recovered to the $129 level.

    The substantial drop in demand for both XRP and Solana ETFs raises questions about current investor sentiment. While XRP ETFs maintain a notable streak of positive inflows, the sharp week-over-week decline for both products suggests a potential cooling of investor appetite. The exact reasons for this decrease in demand remain uncertain, as does whether this trend will continue in the coming weeks.

    Why This Matters

    Weekly net inflows for spot XRP and Solana Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) saw a substantial decrease, with XRP ETFs experiencing a 94% drop and Solana ETFs declining by over 97% week-over-week. The exact reason for the significant drop in ETF demand remains uncertain.

    Broader Context

    The business week began on a higher note for the Ripple ETFs, with investors pouring in almost $4 million.

  • Ethereum Liquidity Dips to 35-45% of Bitcoin’s Amid Divergent Market Depth Trends

    Ethereum Liquidity Dips to 35-45% of Bitcoin’s Amid Divergent Market Depth Trends

    Ethereum’s market liquidity has fallen to between 35% and 45% of Bitcoin’s level, a significant decrease from over 60% a year ago, according to a CoinGecko analysis of order-book depth across eight major centralized exchanges. The report, published by Traders Union on September 30, 2026, highlights a divergence where Bitcoin’s liquidity has substantially improved while Ethereum’s has remained relatively flat.

    Quantifying the Shift in Market Depth

    Ethereum’s median market depth across these exchanges is currently between $13 million and $14 million. In contrast, Bitcoin’s median aggregate depth stands at approximately $29 million on the bid side and $37 million on the ask side. This represents a roughly 50% increase in Bitcoin’s median aggregate depth compared to 2025.

    The analysis measured order-book depth at approximately 0.15% from the mid-price. For Bitcoin, this translates to about $100 on either side of the mid-price, while for Ethereum, it equates to approximately $3. Binance was identified as leading in liquidity for both cryptocurrencies among the studied exchanges, with MEXC showing liquidity around $450,000.

    Drivers and Implications of the Liquidity Gap

    The widening gap is attributed not to a decline in Ethereum’s absolute liquidity, but rather to Bitcoin’s significant gains. This shift in relative liquidity could influence how large trades are structured. Algorithmic traders and institutions that divide orders across different venues may need to account for Ethereum’s shallower order book, particularly during volatile periods when spreads tend to widen.

    Interpretations suggest that increased institutional interest in Bitcoin, potentially driven by spot exchange-traded products, could be a factor in the deeper order books observed for Bitcoin. Despite Ethereum’s own spot ETF approvals, it has not attracted the same scale of order-book commitment, according to the analysis. These market dynamics reflect a steady evolution rather than a sudden shift.

    The report notes that the gap between Ethereum’s and Bitcoin’s liquidity is now substantial enough to impact trading strategies. While Bitcoin’s liquidity has seen considerable improvement, Ethereum’s has remained largely stagnant in absolute terms, leading to the decreased ratio. The exact figures for Bitcoin’s median market depth in 2025 remain uncertain, as does the precise scale of order-book commitment attracted by Ethereum’s spot ETFs.

    Why This Matters

    The materials describe a narrow update: Ethereum’s median market depth across eight major centralized exchanges is now between $13 to $14 million, representing 35-45% of Bitcoin’s liquidity. The exact figures for Bitcoin’s median market depth in 2025.

    Broader Context

    Source materials place the factual news in this context: A CoinGecko analysis of order-book depth across eight major centralized exchanges.

  • Polymarket Traders Face Significant Losses Amidst Growing Legal Scrutiny

    Polymarket Traders Face Significant Losses Amidst Growing Legal Scrutiny

    A Galaxy Research study has revealed that a substantial majority of retail traders on the prediction market platform Polymarket have experienced financial losses, with aggregate losses reaching $338.9 million. This financial downturn for users coincides with an increasing number of legal actions being filed against Polymarket in the United States and South Korea, signaling growing regulatory scrutiny for the prediction market industry.

    According to the Galaxy Research study, which analyzed 2.9 million human-paced accounts on Polymarket’s international platform, over 69% of retail traders finished below break-even. The study excluded accounts likely driven by automation, defined as those averaging more than 50 orders per active trading day. These automated accounts represented a small fraction of wallets (4.1%) but accounted for a significant majority of all orders (80.8%). Among the remaining accounts analyzed as likely retail, the median loss was approximately $3.

    The research also indicated behavioral patterns associated with trading outcomes. Accounts that experienced losses were more likely to cease trading within 30 days compared to those that ended profitably (15.2% vs. 6.1%). Approximately 44% of traders focused more than 60% of their activity on a single topic. Specialists in these focused areas showed a slightly lower profitability rate (28%) compared to generalists (30.4%). Notably, traders specializing in tech and science demonstrated a higher profitability rate of 41.2%, while sports specialists had the lowest profitability.

    It is important to note that the Galaxy Research analysis tracked wallet addresses rather than individual people, meaning a single user employing multiple wallets could appear as several distinct accounts. The study also focused exclusively on Polymarket’s international platform, not its separate US exchange.

    In parallel with the study’s findings on trader performance, Polymarket is facing mounting legal and regulatory pressure. In August, the city of Baltimore sued Polymarket and Kalshi, alleging that both platforms were operating as unlicensed sports betting operations in Maryland. New York initiated legal action in September against Polymarket’s US arm, citing allegations of unlicensed gambling and the platform’s allowance of users aged 18 to 20 to trade, despite the state’s 21-year minimum age for mobile sports betting.

    The legal challenges extend beyond the US. South Korean police have opened cases against 26 Polymarket users and referred 18 individuals to prosecutors. These cases involve approximately $12.7 million in bets, with authorities examining whether the trading activities constitute illegal gambling under Korean law.

    These developments highlight a critical juncture for prediction market platforms like Polymarket. The significant financial losses experienced by a large portion of their user base, coupled with increasing legal actions from various jurisdictions, suggest a heightened level of regulatory scrutiny. The core uncertainties remain regarding the precise number of individual users affected, the definitive reasons behind varying trader profitability, and the ultimate legal classification of prediction market activities in different regulatory environments. The long-term implications of these legal challenges on the future operations and expansion of Polymarket and similar platforms are yet to be determined.

    Why This Matters

    The findings from Galaxy Research underscore the substantial financial risks faced by retail traders on prediction market platforms like Polymarket. The platform’s aggregate losses of $338.9 million and the high percentage of unprofitable traders (over 69%) indicate a challenging environment for individual participants. This is occurring concurrently with significant legal actions in the US and South Korea, suggesting a broader trend of regulatory bodies examining the operational and legal frameworks of prediction markets, particularly concerning allegations of unlicensed gambling and user protection.

    Broader Context

    Polymarket operates as a prediction market platform, a type of venue where users can trade contracts based on the outcome of future events. The study by Galaxy Research analyzed trading activity on Polymarket’s international platform, excluding automated accounts to focus on human-paced trading. The legal challenges, including lawsuits from Baltimore and New York, and investigations in South Korea, reflect a growing global trend of regulatory bodies scrutinizing such platforms, often classifying their activities as potential forms of gambling.

  • Bitdeer Sells 292.3 BTC Mined in a Week, Bets on AI Cloud with Zero Holdings

    Bitdeer Sells 292.3 BTC Mined in a Week, Bets on AI Cloud with Zero Holdings

    Bitdeer Sells All Mined Bitcoin, Maintains Zero Holdings Amid AI Pivot

    New York, NY – Nasdaq-listed Bitcoin mining firm Bitdeer has continued its strategy of selling all newly mined Bitcoin, maintaining zero reserves of the cryptocurrency. In the week ending October 2nd, the company mined 292.3 BTC and sold an equivalent amount, resulting in no net addition to its holdings. This mirrors the company’s approach in previous months, where production is immediately converted to cash.

    Bitdeer is mining approximately 41.8 BTC per day. At the current price of around $84,770 per BTC, the 292.3 BTC mined in the specified week is valued at approximately $24.8 million, based on current market prices rather than actual transaction values.

    This zero-holding strategy is a recent development for Bitdeer. As of the end of 2025, the company held approximately 2,000 BTC. This figure decreased to 1,530 BTC by the end of January 2026, and further dropped to 943.1 BTC by February 13th. In the week of February 20th, the company announced via its official X account that it had sold all 189.8 BTC mined that week, along with the remaining 943.1 BTC from its reserves, officially bringing its holdings to zero.

    At the time of the divestment, Chief Communications Officer Ross Gann stated that the sale of Bitcoin was a liquidity decision, not an abandonment of mining operations. He explained that the company was prioritizing cash flexibility due to evaluating several non-binding acquisition opportunities involving land with power infrastructure. Bitdeer’s statement at the time also emphasized that its decision to sell Bitcoin should not be a cause for broader market concern. Concurrently, the company initiated convertible bond financing.

    Strategic Capital Allocation Towards AI and Power Infrastructure

    The proceeds from these sales are being redirected towards other ventures. Bitdeer’s August operational report (6-K filing with the SEC) details this shift. In August, Bitdeer mined 1,310 BTC with a self-owned hashrate of 79.9 EH/s. Simultaneously, its AI cloud segment reported an annualized recurring revenue (ARR) of approximately $86 million, with 4,328 GPUs deployed and a utilization rate of 92%. This represents an increase from the $76 million ARR reported in June.

    Land and power infrastructure represent another significant area of investment. The company acquired 200 acres of land near its Rockdale, Texas facility, which currently has a capacity of 563 MW. The AI cloud pipeline has a total capacity of 206.5 MW. In Norway, Bitdeer has secured a 16-year lease for its Tydal facility, valued at $4.7 billion, with an option to extend for an additional 8 years, potentially bringing the total value to $8 billion. The company also has an initial 30 MW setup in Bhutan, with plans to expand to 500 MW.

    The company’s second-quarter financial report provided further details on this transformation. At the Tydal facility, the lessee Volta is targeting 121 MW of IT load within the 180 MW park, with Bitdeer retaining 47 MW. In Malaysia, Bitdeer has leased a new 21.7 MW data center, expected for delivery in the first quarter of 2027, which is planned to accommodate 128 NVIDIA GB300 systems. AI cloud revenue for the second quarter reached $14 million, a 284% increase quarter-over-quarter. The company has also revised its full-year mining capital expenditure forecast downwards to between $200 million and $280 million, indicating a clear reallocation of funds towards AI and power infrastructure.

    Financial Performance and Debt Concerns

    However, the company’s financial performance reveals a more complex picture. In the second quarter, Bitdeer reported revenue of $228.8 million, a 47% year-over-year increase, and adjusted EBITDA of $31.1 million, up 575% year-over-year. Despite these positive figures, the company posted a gross loss of $8.5 million, resulting in a gross margin of approximately -3.7%.

    This indicates that while adjusted EBITDA, which excludes depreciation and amortization, presents a favorable outlook, the core business is still operating at a loss when the costs of mining equipment and GPUs are fully accounted for.

    The balance sheet also highlights financial pressures. Bitdeer has $496 million in cash against $1.8 billion in long-term debt. The immediate sale of mined Bitcoin is a rapid method to bolster cash flow, but it also means the company lacks any Bitcoin reserves for emergency situations.

    Industry Divergence in Strategy

    The broader industry context offers a compelling comparison. In the first quarter of 2026, publicly traded mining companies including MARA, CleanSpark, Riot, Cango, Core Scientific, and Bitdeer collectively sold over 32,000 BTC, setting a record. Riot Platforms alone sold 3,778 BTC in a single quarter, raising approximately $289.5 million to repay Bitcoin-backed loans.

    MARA, while selling over 20,000 BTC in the first half of the year, was observed by on-chain analytics platform Lookonchain on September 16th to have repurchased 1,292 BTC through FalconX at an average price of $76,347, totaling approximately $98.64 million. This brought MARA’s holdings back to 35,577 BTC.

    While both companies face cash flow pressures, MARA has begun to rebuild its Bitcoin reserves, whereas Bitdeer continues its divestment. This divergence signals a split in how these mining firms are positioning Bitcoin within their strategies.

    Bitdeer’s approach of treating Bitcoin as a cash flow generator rather than a reserve asset is a logical survival strategy given its high debt and negative gross margins. However, the long-term market acceptance of this strategy hinges on its AI cloud segment transitioning from a narrative to profitability.

    The conditions for success are clear: continued growth in AI cloud metrics and a positive gross margin for this segment will validate Bitdeer’s pivot strategy.

  • Crypto Hacks Top $766M in September Amid Bitget, Liquid Losses

    Crypto Hacks Top $766M in September Amid Bitget, Liquid Losses

    Crypto Hacks Surge in September, Reaching $766 Million in Losses

    September witnessed a dramatic spike in cryptocurrency hacks, with 55 major incidents resulting in a staggering $766.49 million in losses, according to data compiled by PeckShield. This figure represents a colossal 462% increase compared to August’s losses of $136.3 million, with two significant breaches accounting for the vast majority of the September total.

    Bitget and Liquid Network Dominate September’s Losses

    The Bitget incident, with losses estimated at approximately $387 million, and the Liquid Network theft of around $320 million (of which $285 million has since been recovered), have emerged as the largest and second-largest crypto thefts of the year to date. These events have surpassed previous major exploits such as those involving Drift and KelpDAO/LayerZero. When these two major incidents are excluded, the remaining 53 hacks from September collectively amounted to approximately $59 million, less than half of the total losses recorded in August.

    Bitget Details Security Breach

    Bitget confirmed that its security systems detected unauthorized transfers from portions of its hot wallets on September 24 at 18:31 UTC. CEO Gracy Chen explained that an attacker gained access to a backend system within the wallet infrastructure, manipulated transaction data, and deceived the authorization process to release funds. Chen clarified that a compromise of private keys was ruled out and that the exchange’s cold wallets, which hold the majority of its assets, remained unaffected. Bitget intends to cover the losses from its User Protection Fund, which currently holds over $464 million. “We will not run away from this, and every dollar will be accounted for,” Chen stated on X.

    Liquid Network Suffers Major BTC Withdrawal

    The loss at Liquid Network occurred earlier in the month, on September 6, when individuals identified as purported white-hat hackers withdrew approximately 4,000 BTC from the Liquid Federation wallet. The withdrawal utilized the SideSwap peg-out authorization key, although Liquid emphasized that the key itself was not compromised. In communications with Blockstream, the hacker indicated a willingness to return the funds once all nodes were patched. However, Ledger CTO Charles Guillemet expressed skepticism, noting that legitimate security researchers typically do not drain a bridge and then request on-chain contact.

    North Korea-Linked Hackers Suspected in Laundering Efforts

    In an update on September 29, SlowMist reported that hackers believed to be linked to North Korea are laundering the stolen Bitget funds. Their alleged method involves pairing CoW Protocol orders with Chainflip deposit addresses, converting the proceeds to Bitcoin, and then employing CoinJoin to obscure transaction trails. Cos, SlowMist’s founder, argued that anti-money laundering checks are struggling to keep pace with automated scripts. Chainflip is reportedly attempting to block these fund flows and has rejected at least one deposit, though it refunded the money rather than freezing it.

    Other Notable September Exploits

    The remaining eight entries in PeckShield’s top 10 hacks for September ranged from $3.15 million to $7.81 million. The largest of these was a front-running incident involving the MEV bot “yoink,” which resulted in the return of the stolen assets. The Payment Processor V2, specifically the LimitBreak contract at the center of a white-hat rescue on September 25, accounted for $6.6 million in losses, with $3.4 million recovered. In that operation, security researcher Quit successfully moved 23,155 NFTs valued at nearly $6 million out of exposed wallets, though a separate exploit path left 660 WETH unrecovered.

  • ICBA Sues OCC Over Crypto Bank Charters, Citing Regulatory Concerns

    ICBA Sues OCC Over Crypto Bank Charters, Citing Regulatory Concerns

    The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) has filed a lawsuit against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit challenges the OCC’s rules and an interpretive letter that permit cryptocurrency-focused firms to obtain national trust bank charters. The ICBA alleges that these rules allow crypto companies to gain federal bank charter credibility without adhering to the same regulatory requirements as traditional banks, such as FDIC insurance and Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) obligations.

    The core of the ICBA’s argument, according to the lawsuit, is that Congress never intended the national trust charter to serve as a “side door” for crypto firms to receive the benefits of federal banking supervision while potentially avoiding established regulatory frameworks. The ICBA argues that the OCC’s actions may be creating a pathway for digital asset firms to benefit from federal banking oversight without being regulated in the same manner as insured depository institutions.

    This legal challenge comes at a time when several crypto-focused firms have recently secured final approval for their own federally supervised trust bank charters. Notably, Circle received authorization to establish First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A. (Circle National Trust), and Ripple previously secured approval to establish Ripple National Trust Bank. BitGo and Paxos have also been involved in the OCC’s process for approving such charters.

    The OCC’s final rule, published in March 2026, clarified that national banks limited to trust-company operations could also conduct related non-fiduciary activities. The regulator noted at the time that the rule neither expanded nor contracted its existing chartering authority. However, the ICBA contends that this framework, coupled with the interpretive letter, facilitates a regulatory disparity.

    The lawsuit seeks to invalidate the OCC’s final rule and the related interpretive letter. The outcome of this legal action remains uncertain and could have significant implications for the growing number of digital asset entities pursuing similar federal banking licenses. The ICBA’s challenge highlights ongoing tensions between traditional banking groups and the evolving digital asset sector regarding regulatory oversight and market access.

    This development introduces regulatory uncertainty into the crypto banking sector, as traditional banking groups actively oppose regulatory pathways for crypto firms seeking federal charters. The ICBA’s concerns center on the potential for these firms to avoid FDIC insurance, CRA obligations, and the capital and liquidity frameworks applicable to insured institutions. The full implications for the broader digital asset industry and the future of federal banking charters for crypto firms are yet to be determined.

    Broader Context

    Source materials place the factual news in this context: This comes just as a few of those companies secured final approval for their own federally supervised trust bank charters and could have broader implications for the growing number of digital asset entities pursuing similar licenses.