Dubai-based startup Utexo plans to relaunch Tether’s USDT on Bitcoin using the RGB protocol, with a public launch set for November 28.
Lightning Network support is expected in the first quarter of 2027.
The project faces a market where roughly $300 billion in stablecoins already sits on Ethereum, Tron and other networks.
Bridge risk and limited DeFi support remain the main hurdles.
Why USDT Is Returning to Bitcoin
USDT first appeared on Bitcoin in 2014 through the Omni protocol. Tether ended issuance there in August 2023, blaming falling usage. The company later floated an RGB-based launch in 2025, but it never materialized.
Now Utexo is taking up the task. Tether led the startup’s $7.5 million seed round in March, and the new version will rely on Tether’s USDT0 protocol.
CEO Viktor Ihnatiuk argues two things have changed: speed and privacy. Bitcoin acts as the settlement layer, while RGB keeps transaction details off the public blockchain. He claims Lightning payments can settle in around 100 milliseconds.
How RGB and Lightning Fit Together
RGB, in development since 2016, lets users issue and move assets through contracts tied to Bitcoin without publishing every detail on-chain. Participants validate transfers themselves, while cryptographic commitments anchored to Bitcoin provide security. It is neither a sidechain nor a rollup.
The protocol also works with Lightning, allowing USDT to move through payment channels without a base-layer transaction each time. Utexo believes confidentiality will appeal to businesses that dislike exposing their counterparties on a transparent ledger. The company says it can selectively disclose data for compliance and respond to law enforcement requests.
Bridge Risk Raises Questions
Utexo opened early access to its USDT Mint product on October 22, letting verified exchanges, wallets and market makers test minting and redemption on Bitcoin’s Signet network.
Getting existing tokens onto Bitcoin requires locking USDT0 on Arbitrum before an equivalent amount is minted on Bitcoin. Redemption reverses the process by burning the RGB asset. This means security depends on the bridge as well as Bitcoin and RGB, and bridges have historically attracted hackers.
Utexo’s goal is at least $1 billion in Bitcoin-based USDT within 12 months, with a median target of $5 billion and an ambitious ceiling of $10 billion. Whether demand materializes this time remains the key test.
The OCC is encouraging community banks to apply as permitted stablecoin issuers under the GENIUS Act as federal licensing requirements take effect on Jan. 18, 2027.
TLDR
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is urging community banks to apply as permitted stablecoin issuers under the GENIUS Act.
Issuers must comply with the OCC’s finalized rules starting Jan. 18, 2027, though existing issuers with substantially complete applications can seek temporary waivers.
The OCC has not yet started accepting applications and says the process will open once the required federal paperwork approval is completed.
The push comes as banking groups warn that yield-bearing stablecoins could pull deposits from banks, and as critics challenge the OCC’s crypto trust charter approvals.
The OCC has called on community banks to step into the stablecoin market. On Monday, the U.S. banking regulator encouraged smaller lenders to apply to issue their own dollar-pegged tokens, either directly or through subsidiaries, as permitted issuers under the GENIUS Act.
The OCC said it wants community banks to help shape the future of payments. It framed the opportunity as a complement to its Community Bank Comeback initiatives, which aim to right-size regulation and tailor supervision so smaller banks can grow and compete.
Banks Fear Stablecoin Yield Competition
In a separate bulletin published Oct. 21, the OCC said stablecoin issuers must comply with its newly finalized GENIUS Act regulations starting Jan. 18, 2027. Existing issuers that submit substantially complete applications by that date may request temporary waivers to keep operating while regulators review their applications. The OCC said it generally expects to grant such waivers where appropriate.
The invitation arrives as U.S. banking groups lobby lawmakers to restrict stablecoin yields. They worry that interest-paying tokens could draw deposits away from traditional banks. By encouraging smaller lenders to enter the same market, the OCC appears to be pushing back against a future where stablecoin payments are left to large banks and crypto companies.
OCC Faces Criticism Over Crypto Charters
The regulator has been under pressure over its approach to crypto firms. The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) has sued the OCC, accusing it of exceeding its legal authority by granting national trust-bank status to crypto companies. Senator Elizabeth Warren has also asked the OCC to explain its chartering of nine crypto-focused institutions. She argued they do not meet federal regulations and pose a risk to the financial system.
Zcash co-founder Sean Bowe has proposed halting the automatic 8% ZEC allocation to Zcash Community Grants, citing a treasury of about $125 million.
TLDR
Zcash co-founder Sean Bowe has proposed ending the automatic 8% share of newly created ZEC that goes to Zcash Community Grants (ZCG).
Bowe estimates the program holds about $125 million after existing commitments, using an illustrative ZEC price of $1,300.
The redirected funds would go to a reserve for future mining rewards, while ZCG would keep what it already has.
The proposal comes amid criticism of a ZCG-funded outreach program at an adult-industry convention, though Bowe’s draft does not mention it.
Zcash co-founder Sean Bowe has called for an end to automatic funding for the privacy network’s community grants program. He argues the treasury is now large enough to cover years of spending without any new money flowing in.
His draft proposal, published late Monday, would stop the automatic allocation and send ZCG’s 8% share of newly created ZEC into a reserve for future miners. The committee would keep its current assets and continue awarding grants from them.
Why Bowe Says the Treasury Is Big Enough
Bowe puts ZCG’s assets at about $125 million after outstanding grant commitments, valuing the remaining balance at an illustrative ZEC price of $1,300. The committee’s dashboard showed about 91,453 ZEC and $8.8 million in cash, with $2.4 million already committed to grantees.
The inflow continues no matter how much the committee already holds. At the network’s target pace, it receives about 144 ZEC a day, roughly $68 million a year.
By comparison, the Financial Privacy Foundation, which administers ZCG’s funds, reported just over $1.5 million in program expenses for the first quarter. That works out to about $6 million annualized, less than a tenth of the yearly inflow. Even if ZEC fell to $500, Bowe estimates the treasury would cover about five years of spending at an assumed $10 million a year.
How ZCG Governance Works
ZCG’s five-member committee is elected by a community advisory panel and selects grants without a separate coinholder vote. A second funding program receives 12% of newly created ZEC, and holders vote on its grants every quarter.
Bowe wants to keep that larger allocation intact. His draft argues that continuing to pile funds into ZCG’s separate custody and governance arrangements adds risk when the program already has substantial reserves.
The redirected allocation would flow into the Network Sustainability Mechanism, which is designed to support future mining rewards, and would stay there for the rest of the grants stream’s existing term.
Outreach Spending Draws Scrutiny
The proposal landed as a ZCG-funded outreach program drew criticism. The team behind it, ZECsy, demonstrated private payments at an adult-industry convention in Edison, New Jersey, over the weekend. It had requested $550,000 for work spanning adult-industry events, crypto conferences and workshops, including helping workers facing banking restrictions accept payments privately.
Solana’s Firedancer team now requires researchers to burn 1 SOL per bug report to combat AI-generated submissions flooding its security program.
TLDR
Firedancer, the Solana validator client built by Jump Crypto, now requires researchers to burn 1 SOL (about $100) per bug report.
The fee is nonrefundable, even for invalid, out-of-scope or duplicate reports.
A recent audit contest drew 809 reports but produced only 127 unique security findings, and Jump believes AI helped create nearly all of them.
Jump is temporarily boosting rewards, with critical Alpenglow flaws eligible for up to $300,000.
The team behind Solana’s Firedancer software has introduced a paywall for bug hunters. Researchers must now burn 1 SOL, roughly $100, with every submission. The goal is to cut down on AI-generated spam and give engineers more time to investigate real security flaws.
Under terms updated on Monday, the burned tokens are permanently removed from circulation. The cost is nonrefundable whether a report turns out to be invalid, outside the program’s scope, or a duplicate. Reports submitted without a burn are not eligible for rewards.
What Is Firedancer and Why Does It Matter?
Jump Crypto built Firedancer as an alternative to Agave, the main software validators use to check and process Solana transactions. A serious bug in this software can stop validators from processing payments or cause them to disagree about account balances. That could disrupt trades and transfers across the network. Every hour spent sorting through duplicate or unworkable reports is an hour not spent fixing vulnerabilities like these.
AI Floods the Bug Bounty Program
The decision follows a $1 million audit competition that ran from April 9 to May 9. It attracted 809 reports from 162 researchers, yet produced only 127 unique security findings once non-exploitable observations were excluded. Nearly half of the valid submissions were duplicates.
Jump believes AI agents helped find or write almost every submission. In an Oct. 16 review, Jump’s Ishan Bhatt argued that AI has made finding bugs cheap while judging them remains expensive. Engineers still had to reproduce each problem and check whether the proposed attack could actually work. Some reports flagged apparent weaknesses while overlooking protections elsewhere in the code.
The review backlog peaked at 299 open reports. As checks slowed, other researchers rediscovered bugs that had been submitted but not yet fixed or disclosed. About 80% of duplicates arrived more than three days after the original report.
The contest had already charged $100 per submission and capped researchers at one report a day. Jump says charging a fee discourages people from sending large volumes of speculative findings. The new platform also limits each main report section to 3,000 characters.
Higher Rewards for Alpenglow Bugs
Alongside the new fee, Jump is raising payouts. Eligible findings receive double the standard reward through Nov. 20, and triple for bugs specific to Alpenglow, Solana’s new voting system. Critical Alpenglow findings can qualify for up to $300,000.
The move shows how AI is changing security work in crypto. Automated tools can generate reports faster than humans can review them, so teams are now using economic costs to filter the noise.
More than 11.1 million Bitcoin (BTC), representing approximately 55% of all mined coins, cannot be linked to a known owner, according to an October ownership snapshot from Galaxy Research. The findings highlight how Bitcoin ownership remains difficult to identify despite growing institutional adoption, including spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs), corporate holdings, and professional custody services.
TL;DR
11.1 million BTC remain unattributed: Galaxy Research estimates that approximately 55% of Bitcoin’s mined supply cannot be linked to a known entity.
Institutional adoption hasn’t solved ownership attribution: Exchanges, ETFs, and governments account for part of the identified supply, while many wallet addresses remain unidentified.
Unknown doesn’t mean lost: The figure may include individual holdings, inaccessible coins, and institutional wallets that researchers have not identified.
Galaxy Research Finds 55% of Bitcoin Supply Unattributed
Galaxy Research estimates that approximately 11.1 million BTC out of roughly 20.1 million mined coins sit in addresses it cannot connect to an exchange, investment fund, government, or another known entity.
Alex Thorn, Galaxy’s head of research, said the findings suggest that individual investors may still control a substantial portion of Bitcoin through self-custody, where holders manage their own private keys rather than relying on exchanges or financial institutions.
The remaining approximately 45% of mined supply has been attributed to identifiable holders or groups. These include cryptocurrency exchanges, investment funds, government wallets, and early-mining addresses associated with the Patoshi pattern.
The figures show that expanding institutional participation has not eliminated the challenges of identifying who controls individual Bitcoin addresses.
Why Bitcoin Ownership Is Difficult to Identify
Bitcoin’s blockchain records transactions and wallet balances publicly, but addresses do not automatically reveal the identities of their owners.
Research firms identify major holders by analyzing transaction histories and linking addresses to entities whose ownership can be established through public records, disclosures, or other evidence.
However, a single individual can control multiple wallets, while an institution may distribute assets across numerous addresses or use third-party custody arrangements. These practices can make ownership attribution more complicated.
The distinction is important because an unattributed wallet does not necessarily belong to a retail investor. It simply means researchers have not established a reliable connection between the address and a known entity.
Galaxy’s estimate does not mean that 11.1 million BTC have been permanently lost or are inaccessible.
Some coins may belong to holders who retain control of their private keys but have not publicly disclosed their holdings. Others could be held by unidentified institutions, private trading desks, or companies whose wallet addresses have not been linked to their names.
The total may also include coins that owners can no longer access because they lost their private keys or died without leaving recovery instructions.
Galaxy separately identifies approximately 1,123,658 BTC associated with the Patoshi mining pattern, which researchers link to early Bitcoin mining activity and commonly associate with Satoshi Nakamoto. That classification is based on historical blockchain analysis rather than independently confirmed real-world identity.
Wall Street’s Bitcoin Holdings Continue to Expand
Institutional investors have become increasingly visible in Bitcoin markets through spot ETFs, corporate treasury strategies, and professional custody services.
BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust is among the identifiable institutional holders, alongside other investment products and government-controlled wallets. Yet identifying these large holdings does not provide a complete picture of Bitcoin’s ownership distribution.
The growth of regulated investment products has also created a distinction between direct ownership and investment exposure. ETF investors can gain exposure to Bitcoin’s price without personally controlling the underlying coins or their private keys.
What the Findings Mean for Bitcoin’s Ownership Landscape
Galaxy’s research highlights the limits of determining Bitcoin ownership from public blockchain data alone. Although transactions are transparent, connecting wallet addresses to specific individuals or institutions requires additional information.
The 55% unattributed figure therefore should not be interpreted as a measure of permanently lost Bitcoin, nor does it establish how much of that supply is held by retail investors.
Instead, the findings illustrate how Bitcoin’s original self-custody model continues to coexist with expanding institutional participation. As financial firms accumulate more coins, a substantial share of the mined supply remains outside the ownership categories researchers can confidently identify.
Elon Musk says SpaceX has secured $40 billion in debt financing for artificial intelligence infrastructure, highlighting the enormous capital requirements of the AI computing race. The announcement came alongside a warning that specialized cloud providers could face widespread consolidation as lenders become more selective about financing companies whose revenue depends heavily on AI data centers.
Neocloud shakeout warning: Musk predicts significant consolidation among specialized AI cloud providers as credit becomes harder to access.
Revenue diversification matters: SpaceX’s Starlink and launch businesses may help it secure financing unavailable to companies relying almost entirely on AI infrastructure.
SpaceX’s Financing Highlights AI’s Growing Capital Requirements
Musk announced the $40 billion financing on October 25, 2026, saying SpaceX could access capital because of its credit standing and revenue from businesses beyond AI computing.
The debt is primarily callable, meaning it can be repaid early under the applicable terms. GPU deliveries are expected in the first half of 2027, although the precise relationship between the financing and the delivery schedule requires careful distinction between reported details and confirmed contractual terms.
The scale of the financing illustrates how expensive it has become to build computing capacity for advanced AI systems. Graphics processing units (GPUs) are essential for training and running many modern AI models, but acquiring them is only one part of the investment. Data centers also require power, cooling, networking equipment and suitable facilities.
Why Musk Expects a Neocloud Shakeout
Neocloud providers specialize in renting GPU computing capacity to businesses and AI developers. Their services allow customers to access powerful hardware without building their own infrastructure.
However, these companies often face substantial upfront costs before generating enough revenue to cover financing and operating expenses. If customer commitments weaken or data-center projects experience delays, debt obligations can become more difficult to meet.
Musk warned that debt markets had largely closed to companies without substantial revenue independent of AI data centers. He predicted that more than 200 Neocloud providers could consolidate, leaving only a smaller group of survivors.
That prediction remains Musk’s assessment, not an established outcome. The pace of consolidation will depend on funding availability, customer demand and the economics of individual operators.
Diversified Revenue Could Give SpaceX an Advantage
SpaceX has revenue streams beyond AI computing, including Starlink satellite internet and rocket launches. Those businesses could make lenders more comfortable with its ability to service debt during periods of uncertainty in the AI market.
By contrast, a provider whose earnings depend almost entirely on renting GPUs must demonstrate that customers will use enough computing capacity to justify the cost of its infrastructure.
The financing announcement highlights the growing divide between companies that can fund long-term infrastructure projects and those that must continually secure outside capital. Strong credit and diversified revenue may provide an advantage, but neither guarantees that expensive AI investments will generate attractive returns.
For additional context, Reuters’ reporting on SpaceX’s financing provides an independent account of the announcement and the remaining questions around its terms.
The next indicators to watch include GPU delivery schedules, actual infrastructure spending, credit conditions and the ability of neocloud providers to secure long-term customers.
Binance will support cash dividends for Oracle and Marvell bStocks holders.
After taxes, fees and other deductions, the net dividend will be reinvested into additional fractions of ORCLB or MRVLB rather than paid as cash.
Onchain holders will receive the economic adjustment through a multiplier change, highlighting how corporate actions have to be translated into tokenized-stock mechanics.
Tokenized stocks have to deal with the boring parts of being stocks too.
Binance has outlined how holders of its Oracle and Marvell bStocks will receive upcoming cash dividends, and the answer is not a dollar payment landing in an exchange balance.
Instead, the net dividend will be reinvested into additional fractions of the same tokenized security.
Corporate Actions Need An Onchain Translation Layer
Eligible users holding MRVLB or ORCLB at the October 9 snapshot will participate in the distribution.
After withholding taxes, fees and other applicable deductions, Binance will reinvest the dividend into more units or fractions of the corresponding bStock.
Onchain holders will receive the adjustment through a change in the token’s multiplier.
That may sound like back-office detail, but it gets to an important question for tokenized equities: what happens when the real company does something that affects shareholders?
Dividends, stock splits, mergers and other corporate actions all need to be reflected somehow in the tokenized wrapper.
bStocks Are Not The Underlying Shares
Binance stresses that bStocks represent an interest tied to underlying securities and do not amount to direct ownership of the corporate shares.
That is why the dividend mechanics can differ from what a conventional brokerage customer sees.
The token holder receives the economic effect of the dividend through the product structure rather than dealing directly with Oracle or Marvell.
Trading in the relevant bStock pairs is expected to continue, although conversion, deposits and withdrawals will be temporarily suspended around the distribution process.
This is the kind of operational issue tokenization projects have to solve if they want to reproduce more than a stock’s price chart.
Price exposure is the easy part.
Maintaining the economics of dividends and other corporate events across exchange balances and onchain wallets is harder.
Binance’s approach gives the market another example of how those rights can be represented when the asset itself lives inside a tokenized wrapper.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
In a major development confirmed on SEPTEMBER 30, 2026, Confirmed announcement/filing for ZeroDev Secures $6.7 Million Funding To Scale ERC-4337 Smart Accounts. This operational move highlights expanding activity across the digital asset ecosystem and underscores key developments for market participants.
Key Operational Milestones & Context
According to primary regulatory and corporate filings verified on SEPTEMBER 30, 2026, this development introduces crucial infrastructure enhancements. Industry leaders note that maintaining robust compliance, security, and market liquidity remains essential as digital asset services integrate into broader institutional frameworks.
The transition reflects a strategic pivot toward scalable, transparent operations. Analysts emphasize that ongoing technological upgrades will play a central role in sustaining user confidence and market stability over the coming quarter.
Market Outlook and Industry Impact
As institutional participation accelerates across global markets, this landmark event sets a notable precedent. Traders and investors are closely evaluating liquidity signals and collateral flows following the announcement.
In a major development confirmed on SEPTEMBER 30, 2026, Confirmed announcement/filing for SBI Holdings, Mesh & Money Forward Form Japan Joint Venture For Stablecoin Payments. This operational move highlights expanding activity across the digital asset ecosystem and underscores key developments for market participants.
Key Operational Milestones & Context
According to primary regulatory and corporate filings verified on SEPTEMBER 30, 2026, this development introduces crucial infrastructure enhancements. Industry leaders note that maintaining robust compliance, security, and market liquidity remains essential as digital asset services integrate into broader institutional frameworks.
The transition reflects a strategic pivot toward scalable, transparent operations. Analysts emphasize that ongoing technological upgrades will play a central role in sustaining user confidence and market stability over the coming quarter.
Market Outlook and Industry Impact
As institutional participation accelerates across global markets, this landmark event sets a notable precedent. Traders and investors are closely evaluating liquidity signals and collateral flows following the announcement.
Sui network TVL stood at about $1.04 billion on September 21.
Its 24-hour DEX volume was about $185 million.
The data shows the network holding above the $1 billion TVL benchmark, not setting a new all-time high.
Sui is continuing to hold more than $1 billion in decentralized-finance liquidity while onchain trading remains active.
DeFiLlama showed about $1.04 billion in total value locked on the network on September 21, alongside roughly $185 million in 24-hour DEX volume.
Sui Holds The Billion-Dollar TVL Line
The useful part of the reading is persistence.
Sui is not merely touching $1 billion during a short-lived spike; the network is maintaining a large enough DeFi base for the benchmark to matter as a reference point.
DEX volume of $185 million over 24 hours also suggests that a meaningful portion of that liquidity is sitting inside an active trading ecosystem rather than remaining completely idle.
This Is Not A New All-Time High Claim
USD-denominated TVL moves with both token prices and net deposits.
That makes historical comparisons tricky, especially when the native token itself is volatile.
The September 21 data therefore supports a more restrained conclusion: Sui is holding above $1 billion in TVL while generating substantial daily DEX activity.
It does not, on its own, establish a new all-time high for the network.
Even so, maintaining the benchmark is useful evidence that Sui’s DeFi ecosystem continues to command meaningful liquidity through changing market conditions.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
EigenLayer TVL stood at about $11.02 billion on September 21.
The total includes capital from native ETH deposits and liquid restaking tokens.
Protocol TVL should not be confused with stake delegated to any single AVS.
EigenLayer has moved back above the $11 billion mark in total value locked, with DeFiLlama showing approximately $11.02 billion on September 21.
The milestone gives Ethereum restaking another large headline number at a time when the sector is increasingly being judged on how much economic security it can attract and retain.
Restaking Capital Remains Concentrated Around EigenLayer
EigenLayer allows users to extend Ethereum-based economic security to additional services, with deposits coming through both native ETH and liquid restaking tokens.
That structure means its TVL is not equivalent to the value securing one application.
Instead, the figure represents the broader pool of capital deposited into the protocol.
The $11.02 billion reading therefore says more about EigenLayer’s overall capital base than the health of any one actively validated service.
TVL Is Only One Part Of The Restaking Story
Large TVL can demonstrate user demand, but it does not automatically measure revenue, utilization or risk-adjusted performance.
Restaking protocols also have to prove that the capital they attract is being used productively and that slashing, operator and smart-contract risks are understood.
Even with those caveats, crossing $11 billion keeps EigenLayer at the center of Ethereum’s restaking economy.
The important distinction is scope: the figure is total protocol TVL, not stake assigned to a single AVS.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
Hyperliquid recorded about $1.40 billion in 24-hour perpetual DEX volume on September 21.
The figure keeps Hyperliquid among the largest decentralized derivatives venues by trading activity.
The metric is a 24-hour volume snapshot and should not be mixed with unrelated HyperEVM deployment claims.
Hyperliquid generated roughly $1.40 billion in perpetual trading volume over the 24-hour period measured on September 21.
The number keeps the platform firmly in the top tier of decentralized derivatives venues, where activity has increasingly concentrated around a small group of high-liquidity platforms.
Hyperliquid’s appeal has been built around a trading experience that feels closer to a centralized exchange while keeping execution on decentralized infrastructure.
That model is particularly suited to perpetual futures, where traders care about deep liquidity, tight spreads and fast execution.
A $1.40 billion daily volume reading shows how much activity can now take place in decentralized derivatives without relying on a conventional exchange order book.
A Snapshot, Not A Permanent Run Rate
The number should still be read as a 24-hour metric.
Daily derivatives volume can move sharply with volatility, funding rates and trader positioning.
It also should not be bundled with separate claims about HyperEVM contract deployments unless those numbers are independently verified.
The cleaner story is simply that Hyperliquid processed about $1.40 billion in perpetual DEX volume over the measured day.
That level of activity reinforces the platform’s position as one of the key venues competing for traders who want leveraged crypto exposure without moving back to a centralized exchange.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
Login
