The XRP Ledger has activated a feature that lets businesses hand out specific account permissions without handing over the keys with full control. PermissionDelegationV1_1 went live on October 8, giving stablecoin issuers and other operators a way to separate routine work from the authority that controls their main account.

That sounds like an administrative change. For a business approving customers or signing transactions throughout the day, it addresses a real security problem: an online operational key should not automatically have the same powers as the keys kept in cold storage.

A narrower set of keys for everyday work

The activation was reported by CoinDesk, citing XRPL Dashboard. With the cited list of 35 trusted validators, the amendment needed at least 29 supporters to maintain more than 80% support for two consecutive weeks. Its countdown had reset in September after support fell below the threshold.

The account granting authority is the delegator. The account receiving it is the delegate. The owner sends a DelegateSet transaction naming the delegate and its permitted actions. The owner can later change or revoke those permissions, and can appoint multiple delegates with different responsibilities.

A stablecoin issuer, for example, could let a compliance account authorize individual customer trust lines after required checks. The operational team would use its own keys for that task while the keys with broader authority remain offline. A compromised delegate would still be dangerous within its assigned powers, but it would not automatically receive unrestricted account control.

What the upgrade allows, and what it does not

The official documentation divides permissions into transaction-type permissions and granular permissions. The first covers an allowed transaction category. The second covers a narrower function within one category, such as authorizing or freezing an individual trust line.

• Each delegate can receive up to 10 permissions.
• Owners can create different permission sets for different delegates.
• Delegates cannot receive powers that let them change account keys or grant more permissions.
• Granular permissions come from a fixed list. Owners cannot invent custom rules, such as allowing payments only in one chosen currency.

That last limitation deserves attention. A permissions system is not automatically a full corporate policy engine. Teams still have to examine what each available permission permits, rather than assume that an appealing label matches their internal spending or compliance rules.

The safety warning operators should not skip

XRPL’s documentation warns against delegating the PaymentBurn granular permission until the fixCleanup3_4_0 amendment is enabled. Before that fix, a delegate with PaymentBurn can also mint new fungible tokens, including trust-line tokens or multi-purpose tokens, in certain circumstances. The warning says other granular permissions are unaffected.

The reporting reviewed for this article does not establish whether that separate fix is currently enabled. Operators should verify its status before granting PaymentBurn. The warning does not say every delegated account is unsafe; it identifies a specific permission whose behavior can exceed what its name suggests.

Delegation is not a replacement for multisigning

Delegation restricts what another account can do. Multisigning determines which combination of signers must approve a transaction. They solve different problems and can be used together: a delegate can use its own multisigning configuration, with signatures checked against the delegate’s signer list.

There are operational costs, too. Each delegation entry counts toward the owner’s reserve requirement. Delegates need funded on-ledger accounts and pay the transaction fee. Delegated transactions cannot wait in the transaction queue; if they cannot apply immediately to the open ledger, they fail instead of being queued.

For XRP investors, the activation is evidence of new network functionality, not proof of fresh institutional adoption or guaranteed token demand. The next useful evidence is whether businesses put these controls into production.

XRPL now offers a more precise way to divide account authority. Its value will depend on careful permission choices, real operational use and attention to the documented limits. Keeping the master keys offline is a good start; reading the permissions is the part nobody gets to outsource.

---------
Author: Cedric Holloway
New York Newsroom
Breaking Crypto News

Crypto’s late-Thursday selloff delivered a familiar lesson with an expensive invoice: leverage can turn a modest price move into a very large cleanup. About $1.19 billion in derivatives positions were liquidated over 24 hours, and Ether absorbed more damage than Bitcoin despite having a much smaller market value.

The snapshot, reported early Friday, October 9, showed roughly $356 million in ETH liquidations against $298 million for BTC. More than $1 billion of the market-wide total came from longs. This was primarily a wipeout of traders betting on higher prices, not an evenly balanced struggle between bulls and bears.

Ether’s smaller size made the damage stand out

According to CoinDesk’s report, Ether’s liquidations amounted to roughly $1.2 million for every $1 billion of market value, compared with about $180,000 for Bitcoin. On that basis, ETH took roughly six times the damage. Ether fell more than 3% to approximately $2,490 in the report’s market snapshot, while Bitcoin lost about 1%.

That comparison needs a little care. It measures liquidations relative to each asset’s market capitalization, not the probability that an individual ETH trader will be liquidated. It also does not establish that Ether’s network or spot holders suffered six times the losses. The exposure here was leveraged positioning.

The largest single liquidation was a nearly $20 million Ether position on Hyperliquid. Other reported token totals included about $71 million for Solana, $34 million for XRP and $25 million for NEAR. Those figures are selected components of a moving market snapshot, not a complete accounting of the $1.19 billion total.

Why the liquidation totals changed overnight

An earlier Thursday snapshot put market-wide liquidations at $1.16 billion as of 20:19 UTC. At that point, reported long liquidations were $293.8 million for Ether and $269.7 million for Bitcoin. Those numbers are not directly interchangeable with the later $356 million and $298 million totals, which cover both sides of the market in a different rolling window.

For a trader following updates in real time, timestamps and categories matter. A rolling 24-hour total keeps changing as new positions close and older events leave the window. A liquidated position’s reported value also is not the same as the trader’s cash collateral loss. Calling the whole amount money that simply vanished would make a punchier headline, and a worse explanation.

Bitcoin’s rebound does not settle the argument

The selloff pushed Bitcoin below $81,000 before it recovered toward $82,000 on Friday. A separate market update linked that recovery to President Donald Trump ruling out an Iran strike before the midterm elections, easing one geopolitical concern.

Forced closures can amplify a decline because exchanges close losing positions when collateral becomes insufficient. That selling can drive prices toward the next group of liquidation thresholds. Removing leverage can reduce one source of pressure, but it does not, by itself, prove that fresh buyers are ready to support a lasting recovery.

The distinction matters particularly for Ether. Its outsized derivatives losses show where the stress concentrated during this episode. They do not provide a reliable shortcut to either a bullish reversal call or a forecast of further declines.

Bitcoin’s bounce offered relief. Ether’s heavier liquidation burden showed how uneven that relief may be. The useful read is less about declaring a bottom and more about separating a genuine recovery in demand from a market catching its breath after forced selling.

------
Author: Ren Nakamura
Asia Newsroom
Breaking Crypto News

One of the louder institutional critics of the CLARITY Act has stepped out of the way just before the bill reaches a major Senate test.

The National Sheriffs' Association has changed its position on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act from opposition to neutral. The shift does not amount to an endorsement, but it removes a law-enforcement group that had spent months warning senators that parts of the bill could make crypto crime harder to investigate.

In a September 3 letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the association said the legislation remains complex and that important details are still under consideration. The group said it would step back and allow lawmakers to continue building a regulatory framework. Cointelegraph reported the change on September 4.

Why the Sheriffs Were Fighting It

The National Sheriffs' Association was not opposing crypto regulation in general. Its earlier objections focused on provisions it believed could weaken law enforcement's ability to trace transactions and recover money linked to fraud and other crimes.

The group raised particular concerns about proposed exemptions affecting crypto mixers and certain registration requirements. Its argument was straightforward: if services capable of obscuring transactions sit outside traditional compliance rules, investigators may have fewer tools when stolen assets move through them.

Those arguments mattered politically because several senators whose votes could be decisive have emphasized anti-money-laundering protections and consumer fraud. A law-enforcement organization opposing the bill gave skeptical lawmakers another reason to hold back.

Neutral Is Not the Same as Satisfied

The new position should not be read as the sheriffs suddenly deciding every problem has been fixed.

The association said important details remain under consideration. It is stepping aside rather than declaring victory. That distinction matters because lawmakers are still negotiating provisions touching stablecoin rewards, tokenized securities, decentralized finance and potential conflicts of interest involving government officials.

For the crypto industry, however, losing an opponent is still valuable even when it does not gain a supporter. Senate floor math is not known for rewarding philosophical nuance.

The September 15 Vote Is Real

The House passed H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, on July 17, 2025 by a 294 to 134 vote. The official Congressional Record confirms the tally.

The next major test is now on the Senate calendar. The Senate's official schedule says the cloture motion on H.R. 3633 will ripen on Tuesday, September 15 at 2:15 p.m. Eastern time.

Cloture is a procedural vote used to limit debate and move a measure forward. In practice, it is a major test of whether Senate leadership has enough support to advance the legislation rather than letting it remain stuck.

What CLARITY Is Trying to Do

The central purpose of the bill is to establish a clearer division of authority over digital assets, particularly between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The crypto industry has spent years operating under a system where the legal status of a token can depend heavily on how it was issued, sold, marketed and used. Exchanges have repeatedly argued that they cannot reliably determine which assets regulators consider securities until enforcement arrives after the fact.

CLARITY attempts to create a framework for digital commodities and related market intermediaries, while setting rules around registration, disclosures and the application of existing securities and commodities laws.

Supporters say that would let legitimate companies operate in the United States under defined rules rather than moving activity offshore. Critics worry that definitions or exemptions could leave consumers exposed, weaken securities protections or create loopholes for illicit finance.

There Are Still Bigger Political Problems

The sheriffs' move helps, but it does not clear the bill's path to the president's desk.

Lawmakers and interest groups are still fighting over stablecoin rewards, tokenized equities, DeFi treatment and ethics questions involving political officials with crypto business interests. Those disputes are more likely to decide the bill's final shape than the National Sheriffs' Association alone.

Even if the Senate advances the measure, differences between House and Senate language may need to be reconciled before final passage.

Why Crypto Markets Care

For traders, CLARITY matters less because of any single paragraph in the bill and more because of what it could change about the U.S. market.

A workable market-structure law could make it easier for exchanges to list assets, for traditional financial firms to enter crypto markets and for token issuers to understand which regulator they answer to. It could also reduce the regulatory premium investors place on U.S.-focused crypto companies.

Failure would not stop the industry. The SEC and CFTC have already been moving on crypto policy under existing authority. It would, however, leave major questions dependent on agency interpretation and future administrations.

The National Sheriffs' Association has not blessed the CLARITY Act. It simply stopped trying to block it. With a Senate procedural vote scheduled for September 15, that is still meaningful: one fewer organized opponent stands between the bill and its next major floor test.

----------------
Author: Dorian Fenwick
Silicon Valley Newsroom
Breaking Crypto News

Institutional Bitcoin demand is doing something traders have not seen much of this year: getting stronger for several weeks in a row.

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs took in roughly $986.9 million during the week ending September 4, bringing their three-week net inflow total to about $3.8 billion. That is the strongest three-week stretch of 2026, according to SoSoValue data cited by Cointelegraph.

The timing is what makes the move interesting. Bitcoin has been trading around the $80,000 area while interest-rate expectations keep shifting underneath it. On Thursday, the ETFs pulled in nearly $731 million in a single session, their biggest daily haul since January. BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust, IBIT, again accounted for a large share of the buying.

Three Weeks of Buying Have Changed the Picture

The current run is a sharp reversal from the first half of the year, when repeated ETF redemptions often amplified Bitcoin's selloffs. After three consecutive weeks of positive flows, total net assets across U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs stood at about $101.3 billion on Friday, while cumulative net inflows since launch reached roughly $55.6 billion.

Year-to-date flows are still slightly negative at roughly $1 billion in net outflows. That detail matters because it shows how much ground the ETFs had to recover. The recent $3.8 billion wave is not simply adding to an already euphoric year. It is repairing one that began badly.

Friday also showed that demand did not vanish as soon as the macro picture got rougher. Spot Bitcoin ETFs still attracted about $174.6 million in net inflows, with BlackRock's IBIT taking roughly $117.4 million and Fidelity's FBTC about $57.2 million.

Then the Jobs Report Hit

The macro setup turned less friendly on Friday.

U.S. employers added 162,000 jobs in August, far above the roughly 56,000 economists had expected. The unemployment rate held at 4.1%, while labor force participation rose. Wage growth eased slightly to 3.1% from a year earlier, but the headline employment number was strong enough to push markets toward a more hawkish Federal Reserve outlook.

Interest-rate futures moved toward roughly a 60% chance of a September rate hike after the report. Reuters reported that the August gain was the largest in five months and well above the consensus forecast.

Bitcoin responded the way rate-sensitive assets usually do. It slipped from around $81,200 to below $79,000 before recovering part of the move, while Treasury yields and the dollar moved higher.

That reaction gives traders a useful stress test. ETF demand is strong, but it is being asked to absorb a macro environment that can still turn quickly against risk assets.

Bitcoin Is Winning the ETF Flow Race

The contrast with other major crypto funds is getting harder to ignore. Bitcoin ETF inflows increased about 7% from the previous week, while weekly Ether ETF inflows fell roughly 74% to about $218.4 million. XRP ETF inflows dropped about 83% to roughly $19 million.

Ether and XRP products remain positive for 2026 overall, but right now Bitcoin is clearly winning the contest for fresh regulated capital.

That matters because spot ETF flows tend to be slower and more deliberate than derivatives positioning. Bitcoin price action can be pushed around by liquidations, funding rates and thin weekend order books. A multi-week streak of net ETF creations is harder to dismiss as short-term trading noise.

The Next Test Is Inflation

The jobs report did not settle the rate question. Inflation data is next.

A softer CPI print could revive the case for holding rates steady. Another hot reading would strengthen the argument for a hike and could put more pressure on Bitcoin, growth stocks and other assets that benefited from easier-rate expectations.

That makes the ETF flow data unusually useful. If inflows remain strong through a more hawkish rates market, it would suggest institutional buyers are willing to accumulate even without a friendly macro backdrop. If flows disappear as yields rise, the recent surge may have depended more on the dovish trade than it first appeared.

For now, the signal is constructive: nearly $1 billion entered U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs in one week, $3.8 billion arrived over three weeks, and buyers kept showing up even as Bitcoin struggled around $80,000. The next few ETF sessions should tell us whether Wall Street is buying the dip or simply buying the mood.
---------------

Author: Cedric Holloway
New York Newsroom
Breaking Crypto News

Zcash just crossed one of those price levels that forces everyone to reopen a chart they had not looked at in years.

ZEC traded above $1,000 on Friday, reaching roughly $1200 at time of publishing and pushing its market capitalization toward $17 billion. The privacy-focused cryptocurrency gained about 94% over the past month and has climbed from roughly $200 in March.

The move was not driven by one clean catalyst. ETF demand, a surge in mining activity, faster privacy tooling and a very crowded derivatives trade all hit at the same time.

The ETF Is No Longer Theoretical

Grayscale converted its long-running Zcash Trust into The Zcash ETF, ticker ZCSH, which began trading on NYSE Arca on August 25. SEC filings confirm that the shares are registered for NYSE Arca and that the vehicle is now named The Zcash ETF.

The fund is designed to hold ZEC directly, giving brokerage investors regulated exposure to the underlying asset rather than a futures contract or a crypto-related stock.

Since launch, ZCSH has recorded at least $34.4 million in net inflows, according to Grayscale data tracked by The Block. September 2 was its strongest reported day so far, with about $12.6 million entering the fund. Reported totals for September 3 and 4 appeared incomplete, so the true cumulative figure may be somewhat higher.

The dollar amount is modest compared with Bitcoin ETF flows, but Zcash is a much smaller market. Tens of millions of dollars entering a regulated product can matter more when the underlying asset has a market cap measured in the teens of billions rather than trillions.

Then the Shorts Got Run Over

ZEC began Friday near $828 before climbing through $1,000. That move triggered a large wave of forced buying in derivatives markets.

About $36.6 million in leveraged ZEC positions were liquidated over 24 hours, with roughly $34.5 million coming from shorts. CoinDesk reported that open interest climbed to around 2.3 million ZEC, worth roughly $2.3 billion at the time.

A short squeeze can make a real rally look even more vertical. When a bearish leveraged position is liquidated, the exchange buys back the asset to close it. Enough liquidations at once create more market buying, which can trigger more liquidations. Crypto has never been shy about turning a feedback loop into a spectacle.

The presence of ETF inflows means this is not purely a derivatives story. Still, the size of open interest tells traders that leverage is playing a major role in short-term price discovery.

Miners Are Chasing the Move Too

Zcash remains a proof-of-work network, so rising token prices quickly change mining economics.

Network computing power, commonly measured as solrate, climbed from around 25 GSol/s in late August to above 30 GSol/s as more mining capacity came online.

Counterintuitively, the extra competition has already squeezed miner economics. The Block reported that an Antminer Z15 Pro was generating an estimated $708 in gross revenue per megawatt-hour of electricity, about 3% below its estimated revenue on August 24 when ZEC was trading below $900.

The token price went up, but so did the number of machines fighting for the same block rewards. Miners noticed ZEC's rally too. Very considerate of them.

Zcash Is Also Getting Easier to Use

Price is not the only thing changing around the network.

Developers behind Zakura recently released an open-source cryptography toolkit that they say can cut the time required for some private transaction creation on mobile devices from more than three seconds to under 200 milliseconds. The tools do not require a network upgrade and are aimed at removing one of the practical bottlenecks around shielded transactions.

That technical progress matters because privacy technology is only useful at scale if normal users can actually use it without waiting around for heavy cryptographic work to finish.

A Four-Digit Price Changes the Risk Profile

ZEC trading above $1,000 does not mean it has suddenly become a low-volatility institutional asset. Quite the opposite.

A near doubling in a month, billions of dollars in derivatives exposure and tens of millions in short liquidations are signs of a market that can move violently in both directions. The new ETF adds a source of spot demand, but it also gives traders another daily data point to obsess over.

The cleaner signals to watch are ZCSH inflows, ZEC open interest and mining solrate. If ETF assets keep growing while leverage cools, the rally would have a more durable base. If open interest keeps climbing faster than spot demand, four-digit ZEC could become just as dramatic on the way down.

Zcash has gone from roughly $200 in March to more than $1,000, gained a U.S. ETF, attracted new mining power and vaporized $34.5 million in short bets in a single day. That is enough to make the breakout real. Whether $1,000 becomes support rather than a souvenir depends on what happens after the squeeze.
---------------

Author: Ren Nakamura
Asia Newsroom
Breaking Crypto News

Solana has reduced its mainnet target slot time from 400 milliseconds to 350 milliseconds, the first step in a staged plan to eventually cut it to 200ms.

The change went live around the start of epoch 1020 on Friday and marks the first time Solana has shortened its target slot duration since the network launched. It is a small-looking number with a fairly large engineering job behind it.

A slot is the window in which a leader validator can produce a block. Shorter slots mean blocks can be produced more frequently, which can reduce the time users and applications wait for confirmations. The key word is latency. This upgrade is not designed to magically double Solana's transaction throughput.

The Network Is Taking the Staircase to 200ms

The plan comes from SIMD-0525, a Solana improvement proposal authored by Anza engineer Brennan Watt. Rather than jumping straight from 400ms to 200ms, the network is using four separate feature-gated stages: 350ms, 300ms, 250ms and finally 200ms.

Solana's official proposal keeps 64 ticks per slot, four slots per leader window and 432,000 slots per epoch. The number of slots stays the same. The amount of real-world time represented by them gets shorter.

• 400ms slots: roughly 48-hour epochs and 1.6-second leader windows
• 350ms slots: roughly 42-hour epochs and 1.4-second leader windows
• 300ms slots: roughly 36-hour epochs and 1.2-second leader windows
• 250ms slots: roughly 30-hour epochs and 1.0-second leader windows
• 200ms slots: roughly 24-hour epochs and 0.8-second leader windows

The rollout is intentionally cautious. Each stage has its own feature gate, and developers can stop before the next reduction if validator performance or block skip rates start moving in the wrong direction. Cutting latency is useful. Turning mainnet into an involuntary stress test is less useful.

350ms Is Already Showing Up on Mainnet

The first live measurements suggest the network moved in the intended direction. The Block compared two 1,000-slot periods around the transition. A period before the change took about 415 seconds, while a later sample in epoch 1020 took roughly 368 seconds.

Those figures will naturally vary because a 350ms target does not mean every slot lands at exactly 350ms. Still, they show that the mainnet change is more than a configuration file waiting to matter. The shorter timing is visible in actual block production.

The same report notes that developers have not yet set a mainnet activation date for the next 300ms stage. They plan to watch how the network behaves at 350ms first.

This Is Not a Free Throughput Upgrade

One of the easiest ways to misunderstand the change is to assume that 12.5% shorter slots automatically mean 12.5% more network capacity. SIMD-0525 deliberately scales down the amount of work allowed in each slot as the slots become shorter.

Solana recently raised its mainnet block limit to 100 million compute units. Under the shorter-slot proposal, that per-slot ceiling scales to 87.5 million compute units at 350ms, 75 million at 300ms, 62.5 million at 250ms and 50 million at 200ms.

The point is to keep the wall-clock rate of work roughly stable while reducing how long users wait between slots. Validators get less time to process each slot, but they are also given proportionally less work inside it.

That makes this primarily a responsiveness upgrade. Separate changes to compute limits, validator software and transaction processing are where raw capacity increases come from.

Shorter Leader Windows Have a Market Structure Benefit

There is another reason developers want shorter slots that has little to do with how quickly a wallet displays "confirmed."

A Solana leader currently controls four consecutive slots. At the old 400ms target, that gave one leader a nominal 1.6-second window. At 350ms it falls to 1.4 seconds, and at the proposed 200ms endpoint it would be 0.8 seconds.

That reduces the maximum amount of time a single leader can delay, reorder or selectively include transactions before another validator gets its turn. For traders, market makers and latency-sensitive applications, cutting that window can improve market structure as well as user experience.

Shorter slots also make on-chain time more precise for systems that measure freshness in slots, including oracle consumers and automated market-making applications. Solana's own upgrade documentation says market makers may be able to quote tighter spreads as latency falls.

Finality Is a Separate Project

Solana can produce slots every few hundred milliseconds without reaching irreversible finality that quickly. Current full finality still takes roughly 12.8 seconds.

That is where Alpenglow comes in. The separate consensus overhaul under development aims to reduce finality to around 150ms. If that work reaches mainnet as planned, it would represent a much larger change to the time required for the network to treat a block as final.

The two efforts are related in the broad goal of reducing latency, but they should not be confused. SIMD-0525 shortens slots under the current progression. Alpenglow changes the consensus and finality system itself.

Why Traders Should Care

For ordinary SOL holders, a 50ms slot reduction is unlikely to produce an overnight "wow, my wallet is different" moment. The investment case is more cumulative.

Solana has spent years competing on speed, low fees and high-frequency on-chain activity. Cutting slot times without destabilizing validators would strengthen the network's position in trading, payments and applications where latency matters. Reaching 200ms would cut the target slot duration in half from the network's original 400ms setting.

The engineering risk also rises as timing gets tighter, which is why the staged rollout matters. The next milestones are not guaranteed simply because 350ms went live. Developers intend to move to 300ms, then 250ms and 200ms only if network performance remains healthy.

For now, Solana has completed the first real mainnet step. It is faster, the change is measurable, and the path to 200ms is no longer just a proposal sitting on GitHub. The more interesting test starts now: whether validators can keep shortening the clock without giving reliability back in exchange.

---------------

Author: Sebastian Marrow
European Newsroom
Breaking Crypto News

After months of inconsistent institutional demand, U.S. crypto ETFs just produced the kind of week traders have been waiting for. Spot Bitcoin and Ethereum funds collected roughly $2.6 billion in net inflows during the five trading days ending August 21, their strongest combined week since October 2025.

Bitcoin funds took in about $1.92 billion, while spot Ethereum ETFs added roughly $697 million. Both categories posted their best weekly inflow totals of 2026. More importantly, the money arrived during a sharp crypto rally instead of after it was already over.

The reversal was fast. One week earlier, the same two ETF categories had lost about $392 million combined. Going from a $392 million outflow to a $2.6 billion inflow is a week-over-week swing of roughly $3 billion. That is large enough to matter in a market where ETF demand has repeatedly acted as one of the clearest gauges of institutional appetite.

Five Straight Days of Buying

This was not one giant order making the weekly total look impressive. Bitcoin ETFs posted positive flows across all five trading sessions. Monday brought about $298 million, followed by another positive day Tuesday. Wednesday accelerated to roughly $517 million, and Thursday climbed again to about $606 million.

Thursday was the standout. BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust, IBIT, absorbed roughly $503 million by itself, accounting for more than 80% of that day's Bitcoin ETF inflows. Fidelity and Bitwise also took in new money, but BlackRock was doing most of the heavy lifting.

By Friday, Bitcoin funds had added another roughly $307 million. Ethereum ETFs followed a similar pattern throughout the week, finishing with about $697 million in net inflows. The full weekly figures show demand broadening beyond a single fund or a single trading session.

Trading Volume Came Back Too

Flows were not the only number that changed dramatically. Trading volume in the spot Bitcoin ETFs jumped to about $22.1 billion for the week, up from $6.9 billion the week before. Ethereum ETF volume rose to about $6.9 billion from $1.9 billion.

Combined, the two categories traded around $29 billion, more than triple the previous week's level. That matters because a large inflow alongside rising volume gives the move more weight than an isolated creation or redemption event.

Assets under management also jumped. Bitcoin ETF assets rose from roughly $76.6 billion to $96.1 billion, while Ethereum ETF assets climbed from about $10.5 billion to $14.3 billion. Those increases should not be mistaken for pure new buying, however. Most of that asset growth came from Bitcoin and Ethereum becoming more valuable during the week. Only $2.6 billion of it was actual net new ETF money.

The Rally Had Some Powerful Fuel

The ETF buying landed during one of crypto's strongest weeks of the year. Bitcoin briefly moved above $79,000 on Friday and posted its largest weekly gain in roughly two years. Ethereum also rallied sharply, with both assets gaining roughly 24% to 28% during the week.

A major macro catalyst arrived when the U.S. Treasury announced plans to increase purchases of longer-dated government debt. The move helped calm a stressed bond market and contributed to lower yields and a weaker dollar, conditions that quickly improved demand for Bitcoin, gold and other risk-sensitive assets. Reuters reported that crypto stocks rallied alongside Bitcoin after the announcement.

There was also a substantial short squeeze as prices accelerated. That makes the ETF numbers especially useful. Liquidations can force traders to buy whether they want to or not. ETF creations are a different signal. They show fresh capital entering regulated investment products while the rally is happening.

BlackRock Is Still the 800-Pound Gorilla

The flow breakdown again showed how much influence BlackRock now has over the institutional Bitcoin market. IBIT received about $503 million on Thursday and another roughly $239 million Friday. BlackRock's Ethereum fund, ETHA, was also one of the largest destinations for Ethereum ETF money.

That concentration is worth watching. Strong ETF demand is bullish for the underlying assets, but a large share of that demand continues to come through a small number of giant issuers. When IBIT has a particularly strong or weak day, it can move the headline number for the entire ETF category.

2026 Is Still in the Red

One great week has not erased the damage from earlier in the year. Despite the latest inflows, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs remain roughly $2.9 billion in net outflows for 2026. Ethereum ETFs are still down around $192 million for the year.

The improvement is still significant. Before last week's rebound, the combined year-to-date deficit for Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs was around $5.7 billion. It is now closer to $3.1 billion.

That gives traders a clean metric to watch next. If ETF inflows continue while prices consolidate, the rally gains a stronger foundation. If flows disappear as soon as the price momentum cools, last week may turn out to have been a very enthusiastic reunion rather than a lasting return of institutional demand.

For now, the important change is simple: regulated crypto funds are attracting serious money again, and they did it for five straight trading days while Bitcoin and Ethereum were already moving higher. After a year dominated by ETF outflows, that is a market signal worth paying attention to.

---------------

Author: Ren Nakamura
Asia Newsroom
Breaking Crypto News

The Sandbox has contained a cross-chain bridge exploit that allowed an attacker to create unbacked SAND tokens on Base and BNB Smart Chain, producing one of those crypto headlines that sounds physically impossible at first glance: security researchers counted billions of newly minted SAND, with one estimate putting their nominal value near $49 billion.

No, an attacker did not steal $49 billion from The Sandbox. There was never $49 billion of real value sitting there waiting to be withdrawn. The number came from applying SAND's normal market price to an absurd quantity of tokens that had been created without collateral behind them.

That distinction is the center of this story.

What the Attacker Actually Found

The affected infrastructure was the cross-chain version of SAND used on Base and BNB Smart Chain. In a normal bridge setup, SAND is locked on Ethereum and a corresponding amount can then exist on another supported network. The supply on the destination chain is supposed to remain backed by the original tokens.

According to blockchain security firm Blockaid, the attacker hijacked LayerZero delegate permissions tied to SAND's omnichain fungible token contract and used the approveAndCall function to mint tokens that had no corresponding SAND locked behind them. Blockaid flagged roughly $49 billion in face-value minting across more than 400 transactions while the attack was still underway.

PeckShield later counted roughly 14.9 billion SAND minted across two attacker addresses. For perspective, SAND's stated maximum supply is only 3 billion tokens. The forged amount identified by PeckShield was therefore close to five times the maximum supply the token was ever supposed to have.

Crypto has found many creative ways to make token supply charts look strange. Creating several extra lifetimes' worth of supply in one exploit is certainly one of them.

Why $49 Billion Was Never Really $49 Billion

At the time of the incident, SAND's entire market capitalization was only around $140 million. There was obviously nowhere near enough liquidity on Base, BNB Chain, centralized exchanges, or anywhere else to turn tens of billions of newly created tokens into tens of billions of dollars.

If someone creates 10 billion unbacked tokens and the legitimate token trades at five cents, a block explorer can display a theoretical value of $500 million. That does not mean there are buyers willing to hand over $500 million. In an exploit like this, the displayed value becomes increasingly fictional as the unauthorized supply grows.

The economically important questions are how much legitimate liquidity the attacker could reach, whether any backed tokens or other assets escaped before containment, and who was left holding affected liquidity positions. The Sandbox has not yet published a full technical post-mortem or a final audited loss figure.

The Sandbox Shut the Doors on Base and BNB Chain

The Sandbox said it identified and contained the vulnerability, disabled bridging to and from Base and BNB Smart Chain, and isolated SAND on those networks so the affected tokens cannot be moved or redeemed through the official bridge.

The company also said SAND on Ethereum and Polygon was unaffected, no user wallets were compromised, and the Ethereum-held SAND backing legitimate bridged tokens remains intact. It warned users not to buy, sell or trade SAND on Base or BNB Smart Chain while liquidity on those networks is compromised. CoinDesk's report also noted that Upbit and Bithumb suspended SAND deposits and withdrawals after the incident.

The team is taking a pre-incident snapshot and says it is preparing compensation for eligible users of the affected liquidity pools. A full incident report and technical post-mortem are still expected.

There Is One Number That Still Needs Clarification

The Sandbox described the impact as less than 0.01% of total SAND supply. Taken literally against a 3 billion-token maximum supply, 0.01% would be fewer than 300,000 SAND.

That clearly does not describe the total number of unauthorized tokens minted, because independent security firms observed billions. The most reasonable reading is that The Sandbox is using "impact" to describe the amount of legitimate value affected rather than the quantity of fake tokens created. The company has not yet fully reconciled those figures publicly, so investors should avoid treating the 0.01% statement as a measurement of the exploit's minting activity.

That distinction matters because headlines can easily swing from one bad interpretation to another. Calling this a $49 billion theft would be wrong. Calling it a trivial exploit because the project says the impact was under 0.01% would also skip over what actually happened.

The Weak Link Was the Cross-Chain Layer

Ethereum SAND itself was not reported compromised. The exploit targeted the machinery that lets representations of SAND exist on other networks. That is a familiar pattern in crypto security: the underlying chain or token can work exactly as designed while permissions in a bridge create a completely separate attack surface.

The technical issue is particularly important because the attack involved LayerZero-related delegate permissions. That does not automatically mean LayerZero itself was compromised. The available reports point to permissions associated with The Sandbox's SAND OFT deployment. The final post-mortem will need to explain precisely where control failed, how the delegate authority was obtained, and why the minting path accepted it.

Until that report arrives, traders should focus on the facts that can be established: unbacked SAND was minted on Base and BNB Smart Chain, the affected bridge routes have been disabled, Ethereum and Polygon SAND were reported safe, and the eye-popping $49 billion figure measures theoretical face value rather than money stolen.

The exploit may ultimately prove modest in direct financial losses, but the permission failure was anything but modest. When a bridge can create several times a token's maximum supply before someone hits the stop button, the post-mortem matters almost as much as the reimbursement plan.

---------------

Author: Cedric Holloway
New York Newsroom
Breaking Crypto News

Strategy sold 3,458,866 shares of MSTR between August 10 and August 16 and raised $333.7 million in net proceeds. It bought no Bitcoin. It also sold no Bitcoin during the week. Instead, the entire haul went toward preferred-stock dividends, repurchasing STRC preferred shares and adding cash to the company's growing U.S. dollar reserve.

The breakdown in Strategy's latest SEC filing is unusually revealing. Of the $333.7 million raised, $52.4 million went to STRC dividends, $132.2 million funded the repurchase of 1,388,720 STRC shares, and $149.1 million went into the dollar reserve. In percentage terms, roughly 16% funded dividends, 40% funded preferred-stock buybacks and 45% went to cash.

The Bitcoin Machine Has Become a Capital Structure Machine

Strategy still owns an enormous amount of Bitcoin: 840,447 BTC acquired for an aggregate $63.36 billion, or an average of $75,385 per coin. But its behavior since late June shows that management is now actively balancing Bitcoin exposure against the obligations created by its increasingly elaborate stack of common stock, preferred stock and debt.

The change did not begin this week. Strategy's last Bitcoin purchase was 520 BTC reported on June 22. Since then, its own Bitcoin ledger shows four rounds of sales totaling 6,916 BTC: 1,363 BTC around the end of June, 2,225 BTC in early July, 1,638 BTC reported in early August and another 1,690 BTC reported last week. Add the small 32 BTC sale from earlier in June and Strategy has sold 6,948 BTC during 2026.

That is tiny next to an 840,447 BTC treasury, so calling this an exit from Bitcoin would be absurd. It is not. What has changed is the old assumption that every fresh dollar raised by Strategy is destined to become another satoshi on the balance sheet.

Why Strategy Is Building So Much Cash

Strategy created its U.S. dollar reserve to cover preferred-stock dividends and interest on outstanding debt. The reserve stood at $4.80 billion as of August 16, up from $4.65 billion a week earlier and $2.55 billion in early July.

That cash pile matters because Strategy now has recurring obligations that do not disappear when Bitcoin has a bad quarter. Preferred shareholders expect dividends. Debt holders expect interest. Bitcoin, famously, does not care about either one.

In late June, Strategy's board formally approved a Bitcoin monetization program that allows the company to sell BTC to replenish the dollar reserve, cover preferred dividends and interest, or fund repurchases of its securities. The company also authorized up to $1 billion of preferred-stock repurchases and up to $1 billion of MSTR repurchases.

Last week's transactions show the other side of that framework. Strategy did not need to sell BTC because it could issue common stock instead. In effect, the company sold new MSTR shares, used part of the proceeds to buy back STRC, paid STRC dividends and banked the rest.

For common shareholders, that is a much more nuanced equation than the old "issue stock and buy Bitcoin" model. Selling MSTR creates dilution. Buying back preferred shares can reduce financing costs or improve the capital structure. Building the dollar reserve lowers the risk that a prolonged Bitcoin downturn forces unpleasant choices later. Whether the trade is attractive depends heavily on the price at which each security is issued or repurchased.

There Is Still a Lot More MSTR That Can Be Sold

Strategy reported about $21.7 billion of remaining capacity under its MSTR at-the-market programs. That does not mean the company will issue all of it, but it gives management a very large financing lever if market conditions allow.

The company also had $653 million of authorization remaining for preferred-stock repurchases after last week's STRC purchases. Its separate $1 billion MSTR repurchase authorization remained untouched.

This is the part of Strategy that is becoming easy to miss if every update is reduced to one question about how much Bitcoin Michael Saylor bought. Strategy is now managing several securities that interact with each other, with Bitcoin and with a multibillion-dollar cash reserve. The Bitcoin treasury remains the center of gravity, but it is no longer the only moving part.

The latest week is therefore notable precisely because nothing happened to the Bitcoin count. Strategy raised $333.7 million and found three other uses for it. For investors who still model MSTR as a simple machine that converts equity issuance directly into Bitcoin, the machine has clearly acquired a few more gears.

Author: Cedric Holloway
New York Newsroom
Breaking Crypto News