The Federal Reserve left its benchmark rate unchanged Wednesday, holding the federal funds target range at 3.75% to 4%. The bitcoin price showed some volatility around $81,000.
The decision passed 10-2, and the dissents carry as much weight as the outcome. Governor Lisa Cook and Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack wanted a quarter-point increase. It is the first time since 1992 that a Fed governor and a regional bank president have dissented together on the same side.
Fed Chair Kevin Warsh faced reporters after the vote and said politics played no role in the decision, days before the midterm elections. Warsh has said he does not favor forward guidance absent a crisis, which leaves investors to read the data themselves.
The committee’s statement dropped its earlier language about when a hike might support a return to 2% inflation. In its place is a line saying more information will guide the policy stance. The Fed also described growth as strong, up from solid.
The signal points toward tightening. Fed funds futures and the Fed’s own dot plot lean toward a rate increase by December, and some pricing puts the odds near three in four. Inflation has been running hot, and the two dissenters are the officials who want to act on it.
Bitcoin price reaction
Bitcoin price’s reaction was restrained. The bitcoin price spiked to about $81,700 in the minutes after the announcement, fell below $80,500, and then recovered toward $81,000. Most traders expected a hold, so the muted move surprises nobody.
Bitcoin’s first response to Fed news tends to be modest, and that the real direction often emerges over the following day. Spot Bitcoin ETFs drew $110 million in net inflows on October 26 and $176 million on October 27, a sign that some institutional money is buying the dip. Other observers have flagged large holders selling into strength.
That tension defines crypto’s position right now. Bitcoin sits about a third below its October 2025 record near $126,000. A rate-hike path works against an asset that has thrived on cheap money, and the market has spent months adjusting to the possibility that the easy-money era is over.
Some traders read the hold as evidence the Fed will move slowly. Others see December as the real test. For now, the level to watch is a bitcoin price of $80,000. It has held as support in recent sessions, and a clean break below it would expose the next floor.
Warsh and his colleagues have said they will wait for incoming data before acting. Bitcoin will have to wait along with everyone else.
Midterms up next
Bitcoin’s next big political test arrives on November 3, when voters across the country head to the polls. Crypto has not really dominated the campaign trail.
The crypto industry spent about $176 million on more than 100 midterm races to build a bipartisan bloc in Congress that could protect its interests after President Donald Trump left office. Fairshake, the industry’s largest super PAC, led the effort and directed strategy as it had in the 2024 cycle.
At the time of writing, the bitcoin price is $81,478.
Crypto hacks have produced roughly $2.35 billion in net losses so far in 2026 after freezes and returns, according to a report by Lightning.news shared with Bitcoin Magazine. A security researcher by the name of Stacy Muur posted on X compiled “a list of protocols that were hacked for more than $50,000 in 2026.” 230 protocols year-to-date. “Crypto security is absolutely cooked.” September alone accounted for about $768 million in Muur’s tally, driven mainly by centralized exchanges and DeFi rather than pure Bitcoin self-custody hardware wallets, which got significant news coverage at the time.
The largest single loss was Bitget’s September 24 drain of roughly $387.5 million from hot and warm wallets. The exchange and firms including Chainalysis, Elliptic, and TRM Labs have linked the incident to North Korea, citing IP patterns consistent with prior DPRK-linked VPN use, on-chain overlaps with wallets tied to earlier Lazarus Group and TraderTraitor activity, including the 2025 Bybit theft. Attackers used third-party security products to inject fraudulent withdrawal commands without taking private keys.
Liquid Network, Blockstream’s Bitcoin sidechain, took the next-largest hit when attackers exploited an Elements software bug in early September to mint about 4,000 unbacked L-BTC and peg them out for roughly 4,000 real bitcoins, valued near $320 million at the time. The self-described white-hat actors returned 3,400 BTC after negotiations conducted on-chain via OP_RETURN messages and kept about 600 BTC. No federation keys were compromised. The loss came from a type of inflation bug on the Liquid network protocol.
Samson Mow later called the episode part of an “avalanche of AI-assisted attacks” that had already reached other Bitcoin-adjacent software before hitting Liquid. The network is back and running now, having covered the losses, presumably from investors.
DeFi platforms showed the same pattern of concentrated, high-value losses. Drift Protocol lost approximately $285–296 million in an April governance and multisig compromise that involved months of social engineering. An investigation commissioned by the project attributed the operation to North Korean actors.
KelpDAO’s LayerZero-powered rsETH bridge was drained of roughly $292 million in unbacked tokens after a single-verifier design was subverted. LayerZero stated that preliminary indicators pointed to DPRK’s Lazarus Group, specifically TraderTraitor.
Tectonic on Cronos saw about $120.4 million borrowed against manipulated collateral in late August. Validators later rewound the chain and recovered the majority, though several million dollars that had already been bridged off-network were not restored.
Incidents involving Bitcoin hardware wallets were smaller in aggregate despite the wide news coverage. Galaxy Research placed the Coinkite RNG hack values in the range of roughly 1,596–1,789 BTC, on the order of $100–130 million, with higher upper-bound estimates near 2,055 BTC.
Ledger losses of roughly $86–102 million traced to devices sold through the authorized Southeast Asian reseller CryptoBilis, where an unauthorized hardware implant captured recovery phrases during setup, a supply chain attack. The company stated that confirmed cases were limited to that reseller’s supply chain and that its own systems and direct sales were unaffected, though there are unconfirmed reports of such bugged devices making it to German markets. Combined, however, these hardware-adjacent events remain well below the single largest CEX and DeFi incidents.
The year has also coincided with the practical deployment of AI coding agents capable of scanning codebases for vulnerabilities and automating exploit development. Muur has stated that “AI is definitely making it much easier to find and exploit bugs. I think we’re entering a pretty serious cybersecurity arms race.”
Reports note that code-flaw exploits accelerated after the February release of models such as GPT-5.3-Codex and Claude Opus 4.6, which showed high success rates on smart-contract bug benchmarks at low cost.
OpenAI has disclosed internal testing cases in which agents accessed unauthorized test-network funds or bypassed controls to complete tasks. Most of the year’s largest heists still relied on traditional vectors such as key compromise, social engineering, and infrastructure flaws, but the lowered barrier for discovering and weaponizing bugs adds a new layer of risk, particularly for complex smart-contract systems and sidechains.
Bitcoin’s base layer itself has not been the source of these losses. The bulk of the 2026 damage has concentrated in CEX hot-wallet infrastructure, DeFi governance, oracle designs, and Bitcoin sidechain code, while pure self-custody hardware wallets, even when imperfect, have accounted for a distinctly smaller share. Nevertheless, calls for an update to self custody recommendations have emerged from industry leaders, pushing forward multivendor multisig wallets as the future of niche industry.
Google is reportedly unveiling Google Multi-Party Compute, a crypto custody system that splits signing keys across separate systems, at its first digital assets symposium in New York today. The product is in private preview with several financial institutions. Alphabet has started using it to secure its own assets, according to CoinDeskreporting.
Google plans commercial availability in early 2027 and has not disclosed pricing.
The system applies multi-party computation to a signing key. The key is divided into fragments held by separate parties or machines, and a transaction requires a set number of fragments to sign.
The full key is never assembled in one place. A bank could hold one share on its own hardware, another in Google Cloud, and a third with a rival cloud provider. Institutions can set thresholds such as two-of-three or five-of-seven. Before any signature, a policy engine running inside Google’s Confidential Space checks the transfer against limits, destination restrictions, and approval rules.
Google says it has no access to key shares in unencrypted form, per CoinDesk.
Crypto’s security issues
The pitch rests on a persistent problem. Chainalysis attributed 43.8% of cryptocurrency stolen in 2024 to compromised private keys. DeFiLlama data shows roughly 40% of the $16.69 billion lost to hacks through June came from key compromises. In June, an attacker took seven keys from one developer’s computer during the Humanity Protocol breach and drained wallets across two networks.
Such incidents show how concentrated signing authority creates a single point of failure. The industry has responded by recommending multi-vendor multisignature setups that spread control across hardware and software providers.
Google also frames the product against AI-enabled fraud. Chainalysis found that scams linked to AI tool vendors averaged $3.2 million per operation in 2025, compared with $719,000 for other scams. The report links the two figures but does not prove that AI caused the difference.
Ethereum researcher Justin Drake has warned that AI could eventually find mathematical shortcuts that weaken wallet signatures. No AI system has shown that capability. Google’s MPC design targets stolen credentials and unauthorized transfers, not a break in the underlying cryptography.
Quantum computing presents a separate, longer-term risk. Google researchers estimated that a sufficiently powerful future machine could derive a bitcoin private key from an exposed public key in about nine minutes. Roughly 6.9 million bitcoin have exposed public keys. Google says its architecture can adopt post-quantum signatures later without forcing institutions to rebuild their systems, but it has set no timetable. Background on how quantum machines threaten bitcoin explains which addresses are most exposed.
Google enters a market led by Fireblocks, Fordefi, and BitGo. Google argued to CoinDesk that its banking relationships and security expertise give it an advantage. It also positions itself as a neutral supplier for banks that do not want to rely on competitors.
Strategy shareholders have approved the Daily Dividends amendment, the company announced Wednesday. Preliminary results show 99.3% of votes cast were in favor, according to Executive Chairman Michael Saylor.
The amendment allows STRF, STRC, STRK and STRD to accrue dividends every calendar day, including weekends and holidays.
The proposal surfaced on September 25, when the company asked holders to attend a special meeting on October 28. Strategy said the change “would reduce reinvestment lag, enhance liquidity and market efficiency, and increase price stability.”
At the time Strategy said that they “believe these enhancements can also benefit our common stockholders by increasing the attractiveness and utility of our Digital Credit instruments, supporting our ability to access preferred equity capital efficiently and expanding the capital markets toolkit we use to execute our Bitcoin Treasury strategy.
Under the approved structure, dividends accrue every day but are paid on the next business day. Strategy has said scheduled dividend rates and total dividend obligations remain unchanged. The company has argued the change could benefit common stockholders by making its Digital Credit instruments easier to use and easier to fund.
The timing depends on board action. If the board approves the change and required filings are completed, the first STRC record and payment dates would fall on November 1 and 2, 2026. For STRF, STRK and STRD, the first record and payment dates would be January 1 and 4, 2027. Those dates also depend on operational readiness.
STRC pays a variable rate that the company can change at its discretion. Its rate for the month ended June 30, 2026 was 11.50%, according to Strategy’s quarterly report. Shareholders approved moving STRC to semi-monthly payments in June, and the new amendment builds on that precedent.
In short, STRC is designed to help Strategy raise money from investors through a preferred stock offering targeting a stable $100 price and a variable dividend yield, then use that capital to continuously buy Bitcoin regardless of its short-term price movements. This creates a potential global dollar-cost-averaging machine for Bitcoin.
Final vote certification will come in a company filing. Board action remains the final step before any new payment schedule begins.
Strategy’s bitcoin moves this year
The vote comes after bitcoin fell into somewhat of a bear market. Strategy slowed its bitcoin purchases this year and sold some holdings to fund preferred dividends, interest payments and repurchases.
The company’s common stock, MSTR, is down near 50% over the past year, though it has risen by a figure approaching 1,000% since Strategy began buying bitcoin in 2020.
Earlier this week, Strategy said they paused Bitcoin purchases for the prior week and maintained its holdings at 848,517 BTC, acquired for $64.02 billion at an average price of $75,446 per Bitcoin.
The company spent $204.9 million repurchasing STRC preferred stock while retaining a $4.83 billion cash reserve.
Fellow bitcoin-treasury company Strive pays cash dividends on its Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Preferred Stock (SATA) every business day. This started on June 16, after moving from monthly payments.
Bitwise Asset Management this week released its 2027 Bitcoin Long-Term Capital Market Assumptions, raising its 2036 base-case price target for bitcoin to $1,599,766 from $1.3 million a year earlier.
The forecast implies a 34.3% compound annual growth rate from the roughly $83,557 price the firm used as of September 30, 2026. Bitwise’s bear case is $130,686 and its bull case is $3.67 million.
The base case rests on three arguments. Institutional investors will keep adding bitcoin to portfolios. New supply stays fixed on a predictable schedule. Rising government debt will push investors toward assets that cannot be printed.
Institutional investors love bitcoin
Bitwise estimates that institutions controlling about $147 trillion could allocate 1% to 5% of their portfolios to bitcoin, which the firm says would mean $1.5 trillion to $7.4 trillion of purchases. The network issues about $14 billion in new coins per year, and Bitwise argues that gap will push prices higher.
Institutional plumbing is already expanding. U.S. spot bitcoin ETPs hold about $108 billion, according to the report. Banks and brokerages are building custody and trading services, and a recent report describes sovereign wealth funds and family offices buying during the 2026 decline.
Regulators are also moving. A Federal Reserve capital proposal aimed at easing bank custody rules could widen access for large institutions, if adopted.
The past year tested that thesis. Bitcoin fell 53.4% from its October 2025 peak of $126,080 to a June 30, 2026 low of $58,717. Bitwise calls that drawdown the shallowest in the asset’s history. Prior cycle declines were 77%, 84% and 86%.
Whether the shallow decline signals a new pattern or a pause is less settled. Bitwise expects the four-year cycle to weaken as the investor base broadens. Others see the cycle still at work.
Volatility is the other pillar of the forecast. Bitwise models a 27.8% average volatility over the decade, the midpoint between today’s level and its 2036 expectation. Grayscale’s research head recently put one-year volatility at 43%, against a 10-year average of 64%, and lower than the volatility of 19% of S&P 500 companies. Charles Schwab’s research found the asset remains prone to sharp drawdowns despite the lower readings. A Deutsche Bank analyst has described the trend as a sign of a maturing market.
Bitwise also reports that bitcoin’s correlation with gold reached a record 0.58 in September 2026. The firm expects that relationship to deepen, which positions bitcoin as a store-of-value asset. That link cuts both ways. If gold weakens, bitcoin may lose the support it gained from the same investor demand. Gemini has predicted that at least one country will shift part of its gold reserves into bitcoin in 2026, a forecast that has yet to materialize.
The report is candid about what could go wrong. Bitcoin’s track record is short. Its software was developed in 2008 and 2009, trading began on public exchanges in 2010, the first institutional product with bitcoin exposure launched in 2014, and spot ETPs arrived in 2024.
Bitwise writes that forecasts built heavily on history carry uncertainty because future returns may differ from the past. Regulation is a second concern. The Clarity Act’s failure in Congress, which the report traces to Democratic concerns about ethics provisions, shows that progress can stall, even as the firm argues recent advances are unlikely to be rolled back.
Technology is a third. Quantum computing, and mathematical advances accelerated by AI, could threaten the cryptography that secures bitcoin wallets. Bitwise says the network will need a major upgrade at some point, and holders who fail to move funds to new addresses could be exposed. The developers have made progress over the past year, the report says, but major issues remain unresolved.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Tuesday that American leadership in digital assets could reinforce the dollar’s global position, even as Congress has stalled on the market-structure legislation meant to govern them.
Speaking at Ripple’s Swell conference in New York with CEO Brad Garlinghouse, Bessent argued that the foundations of reserve-currency power are shifting. For much of modern history, he said, the dollar’s dominance rested largely on military strength.
“We will keep our military umbrella, but increasingly, it becomes a technological umbrella,” he said.
He grouped digital assets with artificial intelligence and semiconductors as areas where the United States and China are competing to build dominant infrastructure, and suggested the financial rails countries choose will shape the dollar’s reach.
The most concrete link he drew runs through stablecoins, dollar-pegged tokens whose issuers typically hold reserves that include U.S. Treasury securities. Bessent said stablecoins could give people in countries with high inflation or volatile currencies easier access to dollars.
CoinGecko data puts the share of stablecoins denominated in dollars above 98%, with Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC the largest. Bessent himself put the figure above 90%. The exact number differs, but the dollar clearly dominates the category.
NEW: Secretary Scott Bessent says the Treasury is moving on crypto regulation with or without Congress
He says they will “bring the SEC and CFTC together to close the gaps through regulation.” pic.twitter.com/JnsT3oxVEn
Bessent has also argued that stablecoin reserves could increase demand for Treasury debt. Last year he suggested stablecoins could generate $2 trillion in short-term demand for Treasuries and bills. That projection depends on how quickly stablecoin supply grows, what reserve rules apply, and how issuers choose to invest.
Bitcoin traded around $80,000 to $81,000 this week ahead of the Federal Reserve decision. Bitcoin advocates have long argued that a neutral, non-issuer asset offers something different from dollar-pegged tokens.
Broader crypto legislation trends
The regulatory backdrop is more uncertain. The Comptroller of the Currency has finalized its rule implementing the GENIUS Act, which sets requirements for payment stablecoin issuers. The federal framework takes effect January 18, 2027.
The broader CLARITY Act, which would establish market-structure rules for digital assets, failed a Senate procedural vote on September 15, 49 to 50, short of the 60 votes needed. Disputes included ethics provisions related to federal officials’ crypto interests and stablecoin yield.
Treasury Bessent’s willingness to work around Clarity Act failure
Bessent called the setback disappointing. He said Treasury could work with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to address regulatory gaps. “At Treasury, we have a lot of convening powers,” he said, describing the agencies as “great partners.”
He also said regulators could set guardrails to prevent banks from cutting off crypto firms, a practice known as debanking.
“I think we can set up regulatory best practices, guardrails that will prevent that from happening again,” he said.
Those remarks did not set out a formal plan, working group, or timeline. Agency action can clarify rules within existing authority, but it lacks the permanence of an act of Congress, and it can be reversed by a future administration.
Itaú Unibanco, the largest private bank in Brazil, has formalized its role as a cryptocurrency service provider before the Central Bank of Brazil. The filing covers intermediation and custody of crypto assets, the same activities the regulator assigns to brokerage firms, according to local reports. The news arrives as the country’s crypto sector faces a compressed timeline to obtain licenses.
Itaú’s move places the bank inside a licensing framework that did not exist a year ago. Brazil’s central bank requires every company that holds, moves, or trades crypto for customers to register as a regulated provider. By filing, Itaú tells the market that it intends to be one of them.
For Brazilian users, the change matters most for custody. A provider that holds crypto for clients must keep those assets separate from the firm’s own money, meet minimum capital requirements, and follow the same governance and anti-money laundering standards that apply to securities brokers.
Clients of an authorized bank gain a clearer legal footing than clients of an unregulated app or an offshore exchange. For the bank, the filing is a commitment. A regulated crypto operation carries compliance costs, audit obligations, and reporting duties that smaller competitors may struggle to meet.
The move also signals that Brazil’s biggest lenders plan to keep crypto inside the domestic financial system rather than leave it to foreign platforms.
Itau’s embrace of bitcoin and crypto
Itaú’s crypto story started before the new rules. The bank announced plans for crypto custody in 2022, when it was building a tokenization platform. In late 2025, it began letting retail clients buy and sell bitcoin through its investment app, íon. The crypto assets traded on íon are held in custody by Itaú itself, which made the bank’s position an operational one long before it became a regulatory one.
The regulatory backdrop came in 2025 and early 2026, when the central bank published Resolutions 519, 520, and 521. They created a new license category called Sociedades Prestadoras de Serviços de Ativos Virtuais, or SPSAVs, and the rules took effect February 2, 2026.
The framework sorts providers into three categories: intermediaries, custodians, and brokers. It requires formal segregation of client and company assets, sets minimum capital levels, and extends the customer protection, governance, internal control, security, and anti-money laundering rules that already govern banks and brokers.
Resolution 521 brought crypto transactions into the foreign-exchange regime. Transfers with unauthorized counterparties face a $100,000 cap, which limits how crypto moves across borders outside regulated channels.
Companies already operating when the regime took effect had to file for authorization within a transition period.
That timing is why Itaú’s filing reads as a response to a pressure point, not a routine update.
Stricter standards follow. On July 1, 2026, the central bank approved tighter rules. Beginning in 2027, providers must meet financial security requirements similar to those for securities brokers and distributors.
The regulator also barred institutions in Segment 5, the simplified-rules category for smaller banks, from offering virtual asset services. That decision pushes crypto activity toward larger, better-capitalized players, the group Itaú belongs to.
AI hardware is sold out, and the companies that cut their teeth in Bitcoin mining are moving in. Luxor just raised $16 million in a round led by CMT Digital to scale its cloud platform, GPU hardware business and compute trading. Ethan Vera of Luxor and Sam Hallene of CMT Digital join BMTV to explain why Bitcoin mining expertise translates so well into AI compute.
Chapters: 00:00 Luxor Raises $16M to Take Bitcoin Mining Expertise Into AI 01:17 Why CMT Digital Backed the Luxor Team 02:54 What Bitcoin Mining Teaches AI Infrastructure 03:48 Luxor Cloud: Runners, Sandboxes and Code Review 04:51 Sandboxes for AI Agents 05:43 GPU Demand: Nvidia Sold Out for the Year 07:12 Compute Derivatives and Liquidity for AI Markets 08:12 Luxor’s Full-Stack Compute Ecosystem 10:24 Why Luxor Chose Strategic Investors 12:08 Bitcoin Mining Is Still a Core Pillar
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
“We believe the bottom is in.” That’s the call from Galaxy’s head of firmwide research, Alex Thorn. Bitcoin closed back above its 50-week moving average the week of September 20 and has kept that trend, and Galaxy notes that the four prior reclaims after 20-plus weeks below never closed more than 8.4% under the reclaim level in the following year. Here’s why the whole call comes down to the 50-week moving average.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
A CEO whose company holds Bitcoin as its primary treasury reserve says he hates the term “Bitcoin treasury company,” and that the market is rejecting every pure treasury play except Strategy. Patrick Lowry of Samara Asset Group joins Grace Remington and Sean Hagan to explain why “digital gold” was “stupid marketing” that turned Bitcoin into an investment instead of money, and why that framing is exactly why Bitcoin dips every time the Fed talks about hiking. He lays out how Samara uses Bitcoin as working capital instead, parking venture fund commitments in it and liquidating on capital calls regardless of price.
Chapters: 0:00 “I Hate the Term Bitcoin Treasury Company”: The Market Is Rejecting Pure Plays 1:05 Why “Digital Gold” Was Stupid Marketing That Made Bitcoin an Investment 2:13 Hold vs. Use: How Samara Runs Bitcoin as Working Capital for 20+ Funds 3:59 Capital Calls Explained: Parking VC Commitments in Bitcoin Across Halving Cycles 7:17 The Hurdle Rate Problem: Why Holding Bitcoin Can Be a Disservice to Shareholders 11:46 MSCI’s Non-Operating Company Decision and the 1940 Act Loophole 13:37 Bitcoin, Ethereum and XRP: What Happens If Altcoin Treasuries Trigger a Backlash 15:21 Europe Went Backwards: BaFin, the First Bitcoin ETP and Post-Merkel Overregulation 20:20 France’s Bond Crisis and Why Germany Won’t Bail Out the French 23:30 What Rising Sovereign Yields Mean for Bitcoin and Why It Dips on Fed Hikes
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
Bitcoin is holding near $80K, yet the crowd has never seemed less excited and that might be the most bullish signal of all. Michael Sullivan, software engineer and author of Bitcoin Sentiment Weekly, breaks down what language-based sentiment data says about this market. He explains why excitement, conviction and desire are washed out to levels he compares to 2015, and why that looks like the early stages of a disbelief rally.
Chapters: 00:00 Michael Sullivan on Bitcoin and Currency Decay 00:58 Bitcoin’s Pullback From $86K: Is This a Disbelief Rally? 02:10 Bitcoin Sentiment Compared to 2015 and 2022 03:50 How to Tell When the Bitcoin Market Is Overheated 05:05 Measuring Excitement, Conviction and Desire in Bitcoin 06:42 The Next Bitcoin Bull Run Narrative: Bitcoin and AI 08:12 Investor Psychology: Buying Near All-Time Highs vs. DCA 09:42 Bitcoin and Traditional Finance Growing Together 10:54 Why Short-Term Bitcoin Holders Are So Frustrated 12:52 How AI’s Deflation Strengthens the Case for Bitcoin
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
The hash ribbon recovered on August 26 and has held for 61 days. Historically, Bitcoin was higher one year later in six of seven counted recoveries, about a 72% edge. Sean Hagan breaks down the signal, the misses (15 of 231, notably April 2021 at -17%), the January signal still 12% underwater, and why the 30-day hash rate at roughly 1.1 ZH, up 13% from July, says the worst of the miner stress is behind us. Grace Remington asks the right question: if miners left voluntarily, is the signal still reliable?
Chapters: 0:00 The Hash Ribbon Explained: Counting Miner Capitulation Days Since 2011 0:26 A New Record: 223 of 365 Days in Capitulation vs. 141 in 2012 1:01 Why This Cycle Is Different: Miners Left for $100 Billion in AI Contracts 1:48 More Like the 2021 China Ban Than 2018 or 2022 2:14 The Timing Still Fits: Capitulation Peaked 56 Days After the June 30 Low 2:37 Hash Ribbon Recovered 61 Straight Days, Hash Rate Up 13% From the Low 3:20 Price Agrees: MVRV Above Its Average and Bitcoin Above the 50-Week 3:58 Is the Signal Reliable If Miners Left Voluntarily? Higher 6 of 7 Times 5:18 Could Hash Rate Come Back From AI as the Build-Out Hits Bottlenecks? 6:52 A Backward-Looking Chart With a 70%-Plus Directional Track Record
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
Bitcoin price traded near $80,500 most of Tuesday, holding above the $80,000 level that has become the market’s line in the sand. Prices ranged between roughly $79,400 and $80,800 over the day, according to Bitcoin Magazine Pro data, and the asset was up about 0.3% over the prior 24 hours by mid-afternoon Eastern time.
The steadiness follows a rough stretch. Bitcoin price fell below $80,000 on Monday as investors cut risk exposure, weighed down by concerns about AI-sector valuations and higher oil prices. Spot Bitcoin ETFs have also been shedding money. Still, the selling hasn’t turned into panic. Bitcoin price has mostly stayed in a band between about $79,000 and $81,000 this week.
The longer view is harder on anyone who bought near the top. Bitcoin’s all-time high sits near $126,000, set in October 2025, and the price is roughly 30% below where it was a year ago.
The Federal Reserve’s policy meeting runs October 27 and 28, with the decision due Wednesday. The central bank has held its target range at 3.75% to 4% after raising it in September, and officials have signaled another increase may be needed by year-end.
Market odds leaned toward a hold the last time they were clearly reported in early October, but those numbers are stale and likely have moved. Traders will watch Fed Chair Kevin Warsh’s press conference for hints about a December hike.
Bitcoin price logic amidst the midterms
The logic for Bitcoin is simple. Higher rates drain liquidity from speculative assets, so a hawkish surprise would likely push the price back toward $80,000 or below.
A hold, or a softer tone, could give buyers room to push toward the $88,000 range seen earlier this fall. The November 3 midterm elections add another layer. Prediction markets have favored Democrats winning both chambers of Congress, according to one Polymarket reading cited in recent coverage.
For crypto, the most immediate policy question is the pending market structure bill, and lawmakers’ votes on it could shape how the industry approaches the races. Bitcoin and other risk assets have tended to rally in the 12 months after past midterm cycles.
TD Cowen analysts have warned the results could stall the CLARITY Act for two years. Prediction markets gave Democrats a 90% chance of winning the House and 62% of winning the Senate, a scenario TD Cowen called the most negative for bitcoin.
A split Congress, with Republicans holding the Senate, was seen as better, while a Republican sweep was viewed as the best path for crypto. The bill had stalled after a failed Senate cloture vote in September, with ethics provisions and stablecoin yield still dividing lawmakers.
At the time of writing, the bitcoin price is roughly $80,600.
VanEck launched the Wealth Builder ETF today, trading on the NYSE under the ticker WBMO. The actively managed fund packages the firm’s Wealth Builder model portfolios, which advisers have used through third-party platforms, into one product anyone with a brokerage account can buy.
VanEck, which oversees about $244 billion in assets, selects the holdings, sets the weights and rebalances the portfolio.
VanEck describes the product as a way to “gain exposure to a broad mix of investments across stocks, bonds, gold, and bitcoin with a single ETF purchase.” The fund holds global stocks, bonds, gold and other real assets.
Its bitcoin exposure is indirect. WBMO owns no bitcoin. A wholly owned Cayman Islands subsidiary holds certain investments and gains digital asset exposure through exchange-traded products, which are funds that hold bitcoin or track it.
The subsidiary is generally capped at 25% of total assets at each quarter-end, but that limit covers several asset categories. The prospectus sets no specific bitcoin target. Investors do not need a wallet, seed phrase or exchange account to hold the bitcoin slice. They also cannot control the bitcoin position directly.
JUST IN: $200 billion VanEck includes Bitcoin exposure in their new Wealth Builder ETF
"This fund brings Bitcoin to investors who want one simple diversified holding" pic.twitter.com/dLhGu8VrWy
The fund’s gross expense ratio is 0.33%. A 0.07% fee waiver brings the net ratio to 0.26%. The underlying bitcoin products charge their own fees.
The allocation also limits the swings. If bitcoin rises sharply, WBMO captures only part of the gain. If it falls, bonds and gold should cushion some of the loss, though not prevent it.
VanEck warned in its announcement that digital asset ETPs can be extremely volatile and that some are not registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, which means they lack certain investor protections.
The firm’s other crypto-linked fund, NODE, raised its bitcoin ETP exposure from about 7% at the end of June to 16.8% at the end of September. NODE holds blockchain companies rather than WBMO’s mix, but it shows how VanEck is using crypto in its portfolios.
Earlier this fall, VanEck’s Head of Digital Assets Research, Matthew Sigel, said the Bitcoin community recognized the risks quantum computing posed to Bitcoin’s cryptography.
“It’s a risk,” Sigel said at the time. “But the community has recognized the scope of the issue. There’s a lot of talent that’s now come together with a framework of how to upgrade the system…The upgrades don’t happen as fast because there’s no CEO who can tell the devs, ‘hey, do it now.’ There’s a governance process — it takes more time, it’s a little bit messier, but there are technological paths for quantum resistance, and I think you’ll see more of that over the next couple of years.”
Major companies, including Coinbase and Blockstream, had begun developing quantum-resistant security measures to prepare for future threats.
A Bitcoin Security Consortium, including BlackRock, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Block, had also been formed to fund open-source security initiatives, including proposals such as BIP-360.
A St. Louis man has admitted his part in a violent scheme to steal bitcoin from a Connecticut family. Martel Williams, 27, pleaded guilty Monday in federal court in Hartford to conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, commonly called Hobbs Act robbery.
The charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. U.S. Attorney David X. Sullivan announced the plea.
The plot began in August 2024. Prosecutors say the people coordinating the attack wanted bitcoin belonging to a man who had taken part in a theft worth hundreds of millions of dollars. To get it, they recruited Williams and two associates from St. Louis.
The crew was supposed to force its way into the target’s home, threaten him, and demand that he move the cryptocurrency into accounts the conspirators controlled.
Williams and others traveled to Connecticut between August 21 and August 24, 2024. They rented vehicles and gathered supplies, including air rifles, walkie-talkies, and a laptop computer. For two days, they stalked the target and his parents, waiting for an opening to get inside the house.
Cameras, frustration, and a failed bitcoin break-in
The opening never came. Williams and his associates feared they had been captured on home security cameras. They also grew frustrated with the plan and with a lack of communication from their coordinators. They left Connecticut without carrying out the job.
Shortly afterward, a second crew of six men from Florida arrived to carry out the scheme again. On August 25, 2024, Danbury police arrested those six men after a violent carjacking. The men beat and kidnapped two people inside the vehicle. Those two victims were the parents of the target.
Local outlets have tied the target to a bitcoin theft in the range of $230 million to $245 million, though the exact figure varies from report to report. The federal case itself centers on the attempted robbery, not the original theft.
Federal agents arrested Williams on July 17, 2026. He remains free pending sentencing, and no sentencing date has been set. The FBI New Haven Violent Crimes Task Force, FBI Los Angeles, FBI St. Louis, and the Danbury Police Department investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Karen L. Peck and Stephanie T. Levick prosecuted it.
Other defendants in the Danbury case have also pleaded guilty, according to local reporting.
Poetic bitcoin justice
Earlier this month, a scammer who had stolen about 60 bitcoin (roughly $4.8 million) through a fake-review task scam lost it all when thieves emptied three Ledger addresses where the scammer had moved the proceeds on October 9.
Blockchain analysts at Chainalysis said the transfers went into one wallet reported as stolen, while the wider Ledger incident, in which a criminal group allegedly implanted seed-phrase-reading devices sold through Malaysian reseller CryptoBilis, may have drained about $86 million. Ledger said it was working with law enforcement and has confirmed no other vendors were targeted, following a July attack on Coldcard that cost users close to $120 million through a firmware bug.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is investigating whether Polymarket broke a 2022 enforcement settlement, according to Reutersreporting earlier today. The probe revives an inquiry the agency closed in 2025 without filing charges. For a platform that has tried to fit prediction markets inside US law, the question strikes at its core.
Polymarket settled with the CFTC in January 2022 and paid a $1.4 million penalty for offering event-based binary options without registration. The company agreed to block American users from its offshore exchange. Geofencing tools followed, but regulators and critics pointed to traders who reached the site through VPNs. The platform has also courted crypto natives, adding bitcoin deposits in October 2025 as part of a broader push to fund accounts with digital assets.
According to the sources, investigators are examining three areas: the adequacy of Polymarket’s location controls, its advertising inside the United States, and the onboarding and customer protections on its US platform, which launched late last year.
The company is headquartered in New York and runs its offshore exchange through a Panama-registered entity. A probe is an inquiry, not a finding, and many investigations end without enforcement.
Polymarket’s mounting regulatory scrutiny
The inquiry sits inside a wider effort. In June, the Wall Street Journal reported that Polymarket paid individuals to produce videos of fictitious winning bets, and senators Adam Schiff and John Curtis urged the agency to open a probe. Bloomberg reported that investigators were examining the company’s social media activity.
CFTC Chairman Michael Selig has framed prediction markets as tools for hedging and information discovery, and he has argued that federal regulators, not states, should oversee them. Enforcement director David Miller has pledged tough policing of the sector.
Enforcement pressure has a test case. In April, prosecutors charged a US soldier, Gannon Ken Van Dyke, with making $400,000 from insider bets on the offshore platform. The indictment says he used a VPN and an “exit mode” that appeared to sit in a foreign country. Van Dyke has denied the charges, and Polymarket says it referred the matter to authorities.
Scale raises the stakes. Intercontinental Exchange, the parent of the NYSE, agreed in October 2025 to invest roughly $2 billion, and Bloomberg counted founder Shayne Coplan, 27, among the youngest self-made billionaires. The bigger the platform, the more its geographic walls matter.
Earlier this year, Polymarket’s five-minute Bitcoin up/down contract was exploited by a small group of traders who pushed Binance’s price in the final seconds before each close, according to a study. Just 821 wallets, about one in 300 traders, took $8.2 million in the pushed cycles, and 93% of the losses fell on retail bettors.
The authors of the study found no manipulation in the fifteen-minute contract, since a longer window dilutes a fixed push, a lesson that matters now that Nasdaq and Cboe have filed to list similar binary contracts on equity indices.
Washington’s crypto agenda hinges on next week’s midterm elections, according to a new policy note from TD Cowen, shared with Bitcoin Magazine.
Analyst Jaret Seiberg warned in the note that the probable results could make it difficult for Congress to pass the CLARITY Act over the next two years. The bill would set the rules for bitcoin and other digital assets, and the industry has spent $176 million on more than 100 races to shape the outcome. Here are a couple of the results:
A Democratic sweep is the most probable outcome
Prediction markets cited in the report give Democrats a 90% chance of winning the House and a 62% chance of winning the Senate. TD Cowen considers this the most negative scenario for bitcoin and the broader crypto sector. Under it, Sen. Elizabeth Warren would become Senate Banking Committee chair. Seiberg describes her as a crypto skeptic who has led opposition to the CLARITY Act, and he expects her to conduct tough oversight of federal regulators.
Warren cannot stop regulators from adopting policies that favor the industry. Seiberg expects President Trump to remain favorable toward crypto, so he would veto any bill that limits his regulators’ authority. Democrats would lack the votes to override him. As a result, policy changes are expected to focus on tokenization, perpetual futures, and stablecoins.
A split Congress with Republicans holding the Senate
The second scenario keeps Democrats in control of the House while key Senate races stay close enough to break for Republicans. Sen. Tim Scott would keep his Banking Committee gavel. TD Cowen views this outcome as a better result for bitcoin, because Rep. Maxine Waters could trade support for parts of the market structure bill in exchange for investor protections and action on her other priorities.
Adverse legislation would be blocked from reaching the president’s desk.
A Republican sweep is the least likely but best outcome for crypto
Kalshi gives Republicans a 10% chance to keep the House and a 35% chance to keep the Senate. TD Cowen calls this the best path for crypto policy, though the margins matter. A wider Senate majority would improve the odds that leaders advance the CLARITY Act in 2027 or 2028, and they could attempt a revival during the lame-duck session.
A narrow majority, by contrast, would leave the bill stalled, as Democrats keep pushing ethics provisions that the president opposes. When the Senate blocked the bill, Bitcoin-related stocks tumbled.
For background, the CLARITY Act would create federal rules for digital assets. The House passed its version in July 2025 by a 294-134 vote. The Senate Banking Committee approved its own version in May 2026 by a 15-9 vote, with two Democrats joining Republicans.
On the Senate floor, a cloture vote failed 49-50 on September 15. Democrats want ethics language that would bar senior officials, including the president, from profiting from crypto ventures. Republicans and industry groups resist those limits. Stablecoin yield is another dispute. Each side says the other is blocking progress, and the bill is stuck.
On August 15, 1971, Richard Nixon announced that he had directed Treasury Secretary John Connally “to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold.” The suspension was never lifted. Fifty-five years later to the day, Lucho Poletti unveiled the first of ten drawings responding to that decree.
Europe had experienced its own monetary upheavals. Hieronymus Bosch and Pieter Bruegel the Elder worked during an era of expanding banking, credit, and speculation. Antwerp, where Bruegel worked, became one of Europe’s great commercial centers. Both painters populated their compositions with hundreds of figures, constructing elaborate worlds in which human behavior, social order, and moral judgment could be examined simultaneously.
Master Cuts Out The Stone (after Hemessen), Pepenardo (2025)
Bitcoin artists have increasingly returned to this visual tradition. Pepenardo’s Master Cuts Out the Stone, exhibited by BMAG earlier this year, reimagined Jan Sanders van Hemessen’s The Surgeon as a study of who extracts and who is extracted from. Carlijn Kingma’s The Waterworks of Money, shown at Bitcoin Amsterdam last year, depicted the modern monetary system as an interconnected landscape. Complex systems seem to invite pictures that hold everything in a single frame.
Lucho Poletti has made bitcoin-related art since 2017, describing his practice as visual propaganda for the monetary revolution. A contributor to the Bitcoin Conference art gallery since 2021, he returns to Bitcoin Amsterdam this November with Ten Decrees.
The series reimagines ten paintings, four by Bosch and six by Bruegel, around money. Fiat, Latin for “let it be done,” becomes the organizing principle. Nine titles issue commands: let there be fury, profit, chaff, a game, folly, hunger, refuge, collapse, and ash. The tenth, Ultima Fiat, reverses that authority: let it be the last.
Furia Fiat: Let there be fury, Lucho Poletti (2026)
Unveiled on August 15, 2026, the anniversary of Nixon’s announcement, the series follows a biweekly release schedule beginning August 29 and concluding January 3, 2027, the anniversary of Bitcoin’s Genesis Block. Each drawing contains hundreds of figures and objects, with inscriptions often visible only at close range. The 30-by-20-inch prints, produced in editions of ten, form a composition spanning approximately four meters when arranged in two rows of five.
Five drawings have been released, most recently Fiat Moria, after Bruegel’s Netherlandish Proverbs, on October 24. The sixth, Fiat Fames, follows November 7.
Ahead of Bitcoin Amsterdam, November 5–6, I spoke with Poletti about the recurring influence of Bosch and Bruegel on bitcoin art, the relationship between allegory and propaganda, and translating his densely detailed drawings to the conference’s main-stage LED installation.
The Garden of Earthly Delights, Hieronymus Bosch (c. 1490–1510)
BMAG: Bosch and Bruegel seem to be having a synchronistic moment among artists interested in Bitcoin. Both worked in what is now Belgium and the Netherlands, during a period when Antwerp was emerging as a major financial center and the Habsburgs were debasing coinage. What is it about transitional periods (like the current one) that draws artists back to Bosch and Bruegel and their densely populated landscapes?
Lucho Poletti: Because they had already solved the problem I was stuck with: how do you draw a whole society going wrong at once? Bosch and Bruegel put hundreds of people in a single frame, each busy with their own concerns. The system shows up in the sum of it. You don’t look at a Bruegel, you search it. It’s a great way to depict the effects of money, which nobody really sees and everybody feels.
They also lived through a money problem a lot like ours. Silver from the Americas poured into Europe through Seville and on to the bankers in Antwerp. Prices across Western Europe rose sixfold over 150 years. Philip II defaulted in 1557 and the crash spread across all of Europe. Two years later Bruegel painted Netherlandish Proverbs, a village where everyone is absorbed in something foolish and nobody can see the whole.
The four Bosch pieces are about appetite: the temptation, and the bill that shows up after. The six Bruegels are about the crowd, and how society behaves once the rules stop making sense.
Fiat Lucrum: Let there be profit, Lucho Poletti (2026)
BMAG: The series draws on the original meaning of the F-word every bitcoiner knows. Nine of your titles use fiat as a command, while the tenth, Ultima Fiat, seems to reverse that authority. How did you arrive at Latin as the language of the series, and why does the final decree change speaker?
Lucho Poletti: Fiat was never a noun. In Latin it’s a verb, “let it be done.” It’s the word God speaks in the Latin Genesis before the light comes on: fiat lux. Someone with authority says so and it happens. That’s a literal description of how fiat money comes into existence, so I wanted the verb in every title.
Latin wasn’t a stretch for me. I’ve titled work in it for years: Moneta Divina, Cypher Deos, and Novus Moneta Seclorum dating back to 2020. The dollar already speaks it, too. Turn over a one-dollar bill and there are three Latin mottos on the back. Ultima Fiat, Fiat Lucrum and Furia Fiat had their names before the series did. Once there were three decrees in concept, I kept going until I had ten, and the name for the whole series became obvious. Ten Decrees has the Ten Commandments sitting under it, which suits work rebuilt out of painted sermons. In Fiat Lucrum there’s a lighthouse at the top left with FIAT LUX GENESIS 1:3 engraved into it. The title is the phrase rewritten for the money printers: let there be light turned into let there be profit.
Fiat Lucrum (detail), Lucho Poletti (2026)
Nine of the decrees are issued to you, in the flat voice an institution uses. Let there be profit, let there be hunger, let there be a game. The tenth is the only one we get to say back. Ultima fiat means “let it be the last,” which is closer to a plea than an order. Every one of us has been living under the first nine since 1971, whether we noticed or not, and Bitcoin is how we issue the tenth. It closes the series on January 3, the anniversary of the Genesis Block, which also happens to be my birthday.
BMAG: Bosch and Bruegel constructed extraordinarily complex visual worlds where allegory, satire, religious symbolism, and everyday life coexist. Their paintings invite close inspection but rarely offer a single, definitive interpretation. In Ten Decrees, you’re borrowing their compositions while introducing a more explicit critique of the monetary system. How do you approach the relationship between ambiguity and message in your work?
Lucho Poletti: The words carry the message so the people don’t have to. Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights doesn’t have a single word in it. Fiat Lucrum has more than fifty lettered objects, and some are as blunt as a protest sign: four money presses lettered QE-1, QE-2, QE-3 and QE-∞, and a little hand-lettered card on a broker’s desk that reads genius, we print, you pay, have a nice day. Nobody has to wonder what I think of the money system.
Fiat Palea (detail), Lucho Poletti (2026)
I keep the ambiguity in the people. In Fiat Lucrum there’s a crowd cheering a woman who holds up a $ on a golden staff under a sign that says ETF, and that crowd is wearing my mask. So is the man signing the leverage contract, and so is the woman taking the mortgage. In Fiat Palea a man in the mask is knee-deep in a pile of printed bills. Bosch drew his own neighbors into the middle of the garden, and I drew mine. If the ₿ on a forehead were a badge of honor, I wouldn’t hand it out like that. It’s more a badge of the aware, the initiated. Knowing the money is broken doesn’t make one a saint.
I’m careful with endings too. These pieces show the exit while not promising a way out. Near the middle of Fiat Moria there’s a lit doorway with MONEY ₿ BETTER WORLD over the arch, and a plain-faced man on the step looking back at the square. He hasn’t gone in yet, and nobody’s stopping him. Where you’d be standing in that picture is your call.
Fiat Palea: Let there be chaff, Lucho Poletti (2026)
BMAG: In Fiat Lucrum, your reinterpretation of Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights, you introduce a system of waterworks: pipes, reservoirs, and flowing liquidity. Bosch often allowed viewers to recognize things that the figures within his paintings could not. What possibilities does that kind of visual allegory offer you when depicting something as abstract as the monetary system?
Lucho Poletti: What Bosch never had in his garden was plumbing, so I gave it some. Water organizes the whole of Fiat Lucrum. It starts clean high in the mountains on the left, pours out of a machine in Eden and settles in a reflecting basin. Cut into the basin’s wall there’s an inspection window with fish swimming behind the glass. Somebody built a viewing port into the reservoir so you could check it, and every full node on the Bitcoin network is that window.
Downstream the water widens into a lake. In the middle sits a glass tank lettered FRESH LIQUIDITY, with BOTTOMLESS engraved on the bowl, and eight people are having the party of their lives inside it. The valve wheel that controls the flow is on top of the dome, outside the glass, where none of them can reach it. Monetary policy gets set by someone who isn’t at the party. And the tank leaks. From there the water runs orange, down a stream and over a waterfall into a pool where a tick with a $ on its cheek drinks it through a hose.
Fiat Lucrum (detail), Lucho Poletti (2026)
That’s the Bosch trick you’re describing. The bathers can’t see the leak or the valve, and you can see both from across the room. Richard Cantillon worked out around 1730 that new money helps whoever gets it first and costs whoever gets it last. I drew it as a watercourse because everybody already understands water: whoever’s upstream drinks first, and everyone downstream gets what’s left.
BMAG: Looking across the series, are there particular details, references, or artistic decisions that you feel are especially important but might be overlooked by viewers? What would you want someone encountering these drawings for the first time to spend more time looking at?
Lucho Poletti: Up close is where these work, and most of what matters in them is small.
Start with the plain faces. Everybody spots the Satoshi masks and the $ skulls first because they’re the loud ones, but the plain faces belong to the people the system is happening to. In Furia Fiat a line of bald men crawl on their hands and knees with red tubes plugged into the backs of their skulls, and the red is the same color as the fluid in a bowl a few meters away that says TIME. That’s what’s being drained out of them. In Fiat Palea, Adam and Eve stand under a serpent with a $ for an eye. They’re wearing the mask, but neither of them has a ₿ on the brow yet.
Furia Fiat (detail), Lucho Poletti (2026)
Then look at how characters connect across a distance. In Fiat Ludus a sack lettered STIMULUS sits on a bench next to an older figure, and a little way off a kid walks away with the same sack on his back, lettered THE BILL. A blindfolded boy feels around with his arms out while the man lunging in beside him holds up a bunch of $ balloons the boy can’t see. Even the enrollment forms are signed by Seymore Debt and Max D. Out.
Fiat Ludus (detail), Lucho Poletti (2026)
Fiat Ludus (detail), Lucho Poletti (2026)
In Fiat Palea a broken crate stenciled EXECUTIVE ORDER 6102 sits in the straw, and further back, bolted across a vault, a plate reads WINDOW, NO REDEMPTION. Roosevelt took the gold in 1933 and Nixon closed the window in 1971, and I put the two close enough that you read one and then find the other. Up higher in the same piece, a guy in the mask with WHOOPS across his vest is pouring gasoline on a burning bank. In Furia Fiat, the $ skulls stand on GNOSIS and clutch books of knowledge, keeping them for themselves.
The bubbles are dated. Fiat Ludus has a sphere with tulips growing out of the top, marked 1637 and 1720, and another with a hen sitting on a WALL STREET egg, marked 1929 and 2008. Variety’s front page the day after the 1929 crash read WALL ST. LAYS AN EGG. Some of the skies have thin straight lines of cloud behind the smoke, the kind a plane leaves.
Fiat Ludus (detail), Lucho Poletti (2026)
Watch the prices, too. A price in dollars only goes up: at CANTILLON’S hot dog stand in Fiat Ludus the 5¢ is crossed out and the sign says $9. A price in sats only goes down: a fish stall in Fiat Moria has 4000 crossed out, then 2000, and now it’s 1000 SATS. In Fiat Ludus, the carrots changing hands have dropped from 7,500 to 3,000 SATS on the chalkboard next to the dollar hopscotch.
Fiat Ludus (detail), Lucho Poletti (2026)
The Latin is there to be read. MORITURI TE SALUTANT, those who are about to die salute you, is carved around the rim of the arena in Fiat Ludus. EX NIHILO, out of nothing, is cut over an empty vault in Fiat Palea. In Fiat Moria the $ skull leaning out of the window has a plaque on either side of him: MUNDUS VULT DECIPI, the world wants to be deceived, and $TULTORUM INFINITUS EST NUMERUS, the number of fools is infinite, with a $ for the S. Fiat Lucrum has a little panel that runs a whole life in four stops: school, debt, work, death.
And in Fiat Moria there’s a small round time machine with NO RETURN on its side and 1944-2026 on the dial. A man is climbing out of it, staring at the village. 1944 is Bretton Woods, when the world tied its money to the dollar and the dollar to gold. He left then and he’s only just arrived, and he can’t quite believe what he’s looking at.
Fiat Moria (detail), Lucho Poletti (2026)
None of that comes with a caption. You find it by standing close for a long time, the way you would with a Bruegel, and the finding is the whole point.
Fiat Ludus: Let there be a game, Lucho Poletti (2026)
BMAG: Each drawing is 18,000 pixels wide, populated by hundreds of figures, with every Satoshi mask drawn by hand and details that only reveal themselves up close. You’ve described the work as “crafted, not generated.” At a time when AI can convincingly imitate the Old Masters, what significance does that labor have for you, and how does it shape the way you want these works to be experienced?
Lucho Poletti: “Crafted, not generated” is a phrase I came up with to sum up where the work in these pieces actually is. There are machines in my process, but they’re only one part of it. A model I trained on years of my own work does the rough first pass on a composition. I think of it as an apprentice. Bosch came out of a family workshop, and the masters of his day leaned on assistants for the groundwork so their own hours could go into the meaning. Mine roughs out the scene and gives me a base to build toward the standard they set. Then I spend weeks on each piece in a grueling manual process in Photoshop, making the decisions and drawing in hundreds of figures, objects, symbols and phrases until the art says what I mean.
Fiat Moria (detail), Lucho Poletti (2026)
AI can imitate the look of a Bosch or a Bruegel pretty convincingly now. What it can’t do is mean anything. It won’t decide that the valve on the liquidity tank in Fiat Lucrum belongs outside the glass, where the bathers can’t reach it. It won’t decide that the slop on the ground should be piggy banks wired into the money presses, each with its own name: SAVINGS, PENSION, NEST EGG. It doesn’t make jokes either. It’s never going to sit a fool in a jester’s cap on a platform lettered TAKE IT AT FACE VALUE while a $ skull does his makeup. My personal philosophy is that if I don’t do the majority of the work, it’s not my art. I hold myself to that, and anyone who looks at these up close can see a person made the decisions that matter.
That’s how I’d like people to take these in: up close, and for a long time. I don’t ask anyone to trust me on how they were made. The work answers that better than I can.
Fiat Moria: Let there be folly, Lucho Poletti (2026)
BMAG: You’ve been part of the Bitcoin Conference since 2021, and this November Ten Decrees comes to the main stage at Bitcoin Amsterdam, not far from the historical centers where Bosch and Bruegel worked. These drawings are extraordinarily detailed, designed to reward close inspection. How are you approaching their translation to monumental LED screens, and does exhibiting them in the Netherlands carry any particular significance for you?
Lucho Poletti: The prints were meant for one person standing close to search the work and find details that speak to them. An LED wall gets a thousand people at fifty meters, which is an amazing opportunity to create a visual experience for the still pieces, so I’ve done my best to create a compelling one for each piece.
Each one gets fifteen seconds, in the order they were released. The big center wall carries the center of each piece in one slow pass from left to right, so the room gets the shape of it. The screen on the right opens on the Bosch or Bruegel it came from, with its name and date, and halfway through it wipes across to mine. The screen on the left side pulls out lateral details you’d never catch from the floor, like the ship of fools riding the mast in Fiat Moria, or the pigs feeding at the DEBASED trough. All five released so far play back to back as one loop, old master and new money side by side the whole way through.
Ten Decrees, Bitcoin Amsterdam main-stage visualization rendering, Lucho Poletti (2026)
The Netherlands matters to me. Bosch spent his whole life in ’s-Hertogenbosch, about an hour south of Amsterdam by train. Some of Bruegel’s proverbs are still in use in Dutch: people still say someone hangs his cloak to the wind when he turns with the crowd, and in Fiat Moria, a man wearing a Satoshi mask jumps off a mountain, holding his cloak in his hand—a reference to the Dutch proverb about changing one’s position to suit the prevailing winds.
Amsterdam has its own chapter in this story. The Bank of Amsterdam opened in 1609 to give merchants a money nobody could debase, and for over a century its bank guilder traded at a premium over ordinary coin because people trusted the silver was in the vault. David Hume held it up as the model of a fully backed bank. It had been lending to the Dutch East India Company quietly, and when that became public in 1790 the premium vanished and the bank declared itself insolvent. I can’t think of a better city to show a series about monetary decrees and trust, two months before the last one lands on the Genesis Block anniversary.
The Tower of Babel, Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1563)
Exhibition & Further Reading
Lucho Poletti’s Ten Decrees will be on view on the main stage at Bitcoin Amsterdam, November 5–6, 2026, as part of the Bitcoin Museum & Art Gallery (BMAG) programming. Explore Poletti’s detailed write-ups on each Decree for a deeper look at the artwork, symbolism, and historical references throughout the series, and follow him on X.
The Bitcoin Museum & Art Gallery (BMAG) organizes international exhibitions, auctions, and artist collaborations exploring bitcoin and its cultural implications.
Join us at Bitcoin Amsterdam, November 5–6, 2026, and use code BA26-BMAG20 for discounted admission. Get your tickets here.
SoFi Technologies reported record third-quarter 2026 results earlier Tuesday, and its crypto business reached 503,070 products by quarter-end. At the time of writing, SoFi shares were up 14.59% on the day at $16.56.
That said, crypto remains a small line in the results. Crypto transaction revenue totaled $161.6 million in the quarter, but the cost of that revenue reached $160.0 million. Net crypto transaction revenue was $1.6 million, equal to 0.1% of total net revenue.
SoFi earns a fee on each buy and sell order, while the bulk of gross volume flows through as cost. For the first nine months of 2026, net crypto transaction revenue totaled $3.7 million on $417.5 million in gross revenue.
Per the company, member trading picked up in September. Members placed 218,469 trades, a 14% increase from August’s 191,359. Buy trades rose 18% to 133,937, and sell trades rose 8% to 84,532. Buy volume reached $33.8 million, and sell volume reached $39.1 million.
Members placed 25 trades of $100,000 or more. Bitcoin led trading volume with a 39% share. New traders drove much of the activity. 44% of September traders made their first-ever trade that month, 20% had traded before but not in August, and 36% traded in both months.
SoFi Crypto skews younger. 43% of members are millennials, the company said, born between 1981 and 1996, and the median member age is 36. On the stablecoin side, SoFi became the first national bank to go live with stablecoin settlement across Mastercard’s global payments network.
SoFi’s monster quarter
Outside of crypto and broadly speaking, SoFi beat Wall Street expectations for the third quarter of this year. The company earned $0.18 per share on an adjusted basis, topping the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $0.17 and rising from $0.11 a year earlier. Revenue reached $1.37 billion, 9.08% above consensus and up from $949.63 million a year ago.
SoFi has beaten consensus EPS estimates three times over the last four quarters and topped revenue estimates in all four. Shares have fallen 44.8% this year, while the S&P 500 gained 12.1%.
Zacks currently rates the stock Rank #3 (Hold), which signals performance in line with the market. Analysts expect $0.20 per share on $1.32 billion in revenue next quarter and $0.60 per share on $4.87 billion for the full year.
Founded as a student loan refinancing startup, SoFi has evolved into a full-scale financial services platform offering products ranging from IPO investing to credit cards and high-yield savings accounts. SoFi has a market cap of $21.5 billion.
The crypto industry has spent about $176 million across more than 100 midterm races this cycle, according to a Reuters review of campaign spending. The money is part of a plan to build a bipartisan coalition in Congress that can protect the sector after President Donald Trump leaves office.
Fairshake, the industry’s largest super PAC, leads the effort. The group spent $196 million in the 2024 cycle and is directing strategy again. Through October 20, Fairshake and its affiliate PACs had spent about $150.8 million this year, while other crypto groups spent around $25 million. Fairshake said 53 of the 58 candidates it backed in primaries or special elections won, and those candidates will be on the November 3 ballot, per Reuters.
Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited sums but cannot coordinate with campaigns. Fairshake’s ads run through affiliates with names such as “Defend American Jobs” and “Protect Progress,” and they often focus on taxes and immigration rather than crypto. Voters have little way of knowing who pays for them.
The watchdog group Public Citizen said crypto was the largest corporate spender in federal races in 2026. Crypto firms led corporate political spending at that point, citing the same watchdog’s analysis.
Coinbase, Ripple and Andreessen Horowitz are the primary financiers. Industry strategists and campaign staff said the money is a calling card meant to build relationships with elected officials.
Crypto’s long game in Congress
Colin McLaren, head of government relations at the Solana Policy Institute, which has given $4.9 million to the midterms, called it “an investment in the future,” per Reuters.
The approach reflects a sharp change. In 2018, lawmakers could not secure a room in the House or Senate office buildings for the first bipartisan crypto roundtable, so they met at the Library of Congress. Then, under the Biden administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission levied more than $6 billion in penalties across 98 cases, according to a Georgetown University Law study.
Executives concluded they needed political force. Coinbase Chief Policy Officer Faryar Shirzad helped launch Stand With Crypto and Fairshake in 2023. The number of lawmakers rated “A” by Stand With Crypto rose to 332 from 96 when the group launched.
Legislation followed. The GENIUS Act, enacted in 2025 with broad bipartisan support, created the first federal regulatory framework for stablecoins. The industry’s next goal, the Clarity Act, would place oversight under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That bill stalled this session. Senate Democrats blocked it from reaching a final vote over an ethics provision that would have forced the Trump family to sell its crypto holdings.
Fairshake helped defeat Sherrod Brown, who chaired the Senate Banking Committee, in 2024, and the industry has since spent more than $68 million on his rematch against Republican Jon Husted, according to AdImpact.
Fairshake’s ads against Brown do not mention crypto, and Brown’s campaign manager, Patrick Eisenhauer, said “the special interests are panicking.” In Illinois, Fairshake spent over $10.1 million attacking Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton and $2.5 million against state Representative La Shawn Ford, per Reuters, yet both are expected to win on November 3.
Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss each gave about $13 million this cycle, most of it to MAGA Inc.
What voters think
Public attitudes are mixed. A September survey seen by Bitcoin Magazine of 1,545 U.S. adults by Ipsos for the DeFi Education Fund found that 22% have owned or used crypto, up from 18% in 2025. Only 19% believe the U.S. financial system is secure.
The survey also found 35% say it is important for candidates to support building the next generation of financial technology in the United States. Only 13% said the same when the question named blockchain, crypto or DeFi. The DeFi Education Fund is a digital asset advocacy group, so its framing reflects that perspective.
Login
Secretary Scott Bessent says the Treasury is moving on crypto regulation with or without Congress
