The flaw raised concerns about the security of staking deposits during Ethereum’s transition to a new block-production system. Although no funds have reportedly been lost, the discovery highlights the importance of extensive testing before major blockchain upgrades reach the main network.
The fix was merged on October 26, following additional developer review and testing.
Ethereum’s upcoming Glamsterdam upgrade introduces major changes to how blocks are constructed and validated.
One of its central features is enshrined proposer-builder separation (ePBS), which formally separates the responsibilities of block builders and validators within Ethereum’s consensus protocol.
Builders assemble transactions into blocks, while validators participate in securing the network and confirming proposed blocks.
However, developers discovered that the proposed deposit-handling rules could create an unexpected conflict when a builder and validator used the same public key.
The issue was identified by researcher Avsetsin, who described a scenario involving deposits awaiting processing during the Glamsterdam transition.
An operator could first register as a builder using a particular public key.
If a staking protocol subsequently submitted ETH to establish a validator under that same key, the original upgrade rules could have credited both deposits to the builder’s balance.
The operator might then have been able to withdraw funds that were intended for the staking protocol’s validator.
Making matters worse, the validator would not be created, potentially preventing the staking service from obtaining the proof required to recover its deposit.
The researcher examined possible implications for staking systems associated with Lido, Origin, and Rocket Pool.
However, these findings were conditional and did not establish that the protocols were vulnerable in their live deployments.
Existing safeguards could also prevent the scenario, depending on how individual staking services handle deposits.
The proposed correction initially encountered resistance.
On October 19, Ethereum consensus specifications maintainer Justin Traglia closed the proposed change, citing insufficient support from client development teams.
Client teams maintain the software used by Ethereum validators and other network participants.
The decision was subsequently reconsidered as developers gained additional time to examine the problem.
Avsetsin introduced further tests on October 23, and the updated correction was merged on October 26.
Under the revised rules, pending deposits are classified according to their withdrawal credentials rather than relying solely on the public key.
This helps ensure that deposits intended for validators remain associated with validators, even when a builder uses the same key.
For readers following Ethereum developments, the reversal demonstrates how security reviews can influence important protocol decisions.
Although the deposit vulnerability has been addressed at the specification level, Glamsterdam still faces additional testing requirements.
The upgrade previously activated on Ethereum’s Sepolia test network on October 6.
A subsequent activation on the Hoodi test network was scheduled for October 26 but was postponed.
The delay followed concerns involving interactions between proposed gas-cost changes and existing smart contracts.
The newly merged deposit correction must also be incorporated into the relevant Ethereum client software before the upgrade proceeds.
Developers have not yet confirmed a replacement Hoodi activation date or a mainnet launch schedule.
These developments remain important for the wider blockchain ecosystem, where major upgrades can introduce new technical risks alongside performance improvements.
The resolution represents a positive security development for Ethereum’s staking infrastructure.
By identifying and correcting the issue before mainnet deployment, developers have reduced the risk of validator deposits being incorrectly assigned during the network upgrade.
Nevertheless, the correction does not mean Glamsterdam is ready for immediate deployment.
Client implementation, additional testing, and successful network coordination remain necessary.
For investors and participants monitoring the broader cryptocurrency industry, the incident reinforces the importance of careful development and security reviews.
Ultimately, Glamsterdam aims to improve Ethereum’s scalability and block-production efficiency. Its successful deployment will depend not only on introducing new capabilities but also on ensuring that existing staking operations remain secure.
]]>His warning comes as investors reassess the sustainability of the AI-driven stock market rally, raising questions about whether cryptocurrencies can withstand a broader decline in risk assets.
Ansem, a widely followed cryptocurrency trader, has warned that Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) are showing signs of deteriorating market momentum.
In comments shared on October 26, he argued that both cryptocurrencies have broken important medium-term trends, potentially opening the door to additional losses.
He identified $82,000 for Bitcoin and $2,400 for Ethereum as important reference levels, warning that downward momentum could accelerate beneath them.
According to BeInCrypto’s October 27 report, Ansem also expects substantial volatility throughout the fourth quarter, with sharp movements possible in both directions.
His assessment reflects growing concerns that cryptocurrency prices remain vulnerable to broader financial market conditions.
A major factor behind Ansem’s bearish outlook is the performance of artificial intelligence-related stocks.
The trader believes several popular AI investments experienced a rapid, potentially unsustainable rally before showing signs of exhaustion.
In technical analysis, such movements are sometimes described as blow-off tops, where aggressive buying drives prices sharply higher before momentum weakens.
Ansem pointed to declining momentum among AI-focused companies and questioned whether recent stock market breakouts could be sustained.
He also highlighted concerns surrounding enormous corporate investments in AI infrastructure, particularly whether those expenditures will generate sufficient revenue and profitability.
These concerns matter for cryptocurrency markets because Bitcoin and Ethereum can behave like risk-sensitive assets during periods of financial uncertainty.
When investors reduce exposure to speculative investments, digital assets may experience additional selling pressure.
The timing of Ansem’s warning is significant, with the Federal Reserve scheduled to announce its latest interest rate decision on October 28.
Investors will closely examine the central bank’s policy announcement and accompanying commentary for indications about future borrowing costs and financial conditions.
Major corporate earnings announcements could also influence market sentiment, particularly if technology companies reveal weaker-than-expected growth or rising AI-related expenses.
A combination of disappointing earnings and uncertainty surrounding monetary policy could increase volatility across equities and cryptocurrencies.
For traders following Bitcoin market developments, these events could provide important clues about whether the latest market weakness continues or begins to stabilize.
However, the direction of the next major price movement remains uncertain.
Beyond technical indicators, Ansem expressed concern about sentiment within the cryptocurrency community.
He suggested that optimism surrounding on-chain assets has become increasingly unpopular, describing current sentiment as among the weakest he has witnessed in approximately nine years.
The trader also criticized the industry’s focus on short-term token prices rather than building applications capable of attracting sustainable demand.
His comments highlight a broader challenge facing cryptocurrency projects: maintaining investor interest while demonstrating meaningful utility.
Developers may need to prioritize products, infrastructure, and user adoption rather than relying exclusively on speculative trading activity.
Readers following Ethereum news and the wider cryptocurrency market will recognize that these concerns extend beyond Bitcoin and ETH.
Despite his bearish near-term outlook, Ansem has not abandoned his longer-term confidence in cryptocurrency markets.
He believes a correction could occur before Bitcoin and Ethereum resume their upward trajectory.
The trader also suggested that selected on-chain assets could outperform even during a difficult broader market environment.
This distinction is important because his warning concerns near-term market conditions rather than a permanent deterioration in cryptocurrency fundamentals.
For now, Bitcoin and Ethereum investors face a combination of technical weakness, uncertain macroeconomic conditions, and changing sentiment toward AI investments.
Whether these pressures result in a deeper correction will depend on market reactions to upcoming economic announcements, corporate earnings, and the ability of cryptocurrencies to regain important technical levels.
]]>The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) granted final approval for Ripple National Trust Bank on October 26, 2026. The decision strengthens Ripple’s position within the regulated financial system, particularly as the company expands its stablecoin and digital asset custody operations.
The OCC’s decision completes a regulatory process that began with conditional approval in December 2025. With final approval secured, Ripple can move forward with establishing a national trust bank operating under federal supervision.
According to Ripple’s official announcement, the institution’s approved activities include managing the segregated reserves backing Ripple USD (RLUSD), acting as collateral trustee for those reserves, and providing fiduciary digital asset custody services.
The approval is an important step for Ripple as it seeks to serve businesses and financial institutions looking for regulated infrastructure to manage digital assets.
However, a national trust bank is not the same as a traditional commercial bank. Ripple’s new institution is not being established as a conventional deposit-taking and lending bank.
The approval is particularly relevant to RLUSD, Ripple’s US dollar-pegged stablecoin. The company said the token had reached a market capitalization of approximately $2.5 billion, reflecting its growing role in Ripple’s institutional payments and trading ecosystem.
Importantly, RLUSD will continue to be issued by Standard Custody & Trust Company, Ripple’s subsidiary regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services. The newly approved national trust bank will add federal oversight to the infrastructure supporting the stablecoin, including its reserves and custody-related operations.
This distinction matters because the bank’s primary functions are tied to stablecoin infrastructure and institutional services rather than directly to XRP trading.
Ripple has continued to build its institutional business around payments, custody, treasury services, and digital asset infrastructure. These developments could strengthen its broader position in financial markets, although the eventual impact will depend on adoption and actual use of its products.
Despite the significance of the regulatory decision, XRP did not record a substantial rally following the announcement. U.Today reported that the token traded around $1.30 to $1.31 during early trading on October 27, with only modest movement over the preceding 24 hours.
One possible explanation is that the approval primarily strengthens Ripple’s business infrastructure rather than immediately changing XRP’s supply, demand, or utility.
RLUSD and XRP serve different purposes within the broader ecosystem. RLUSD is designed to maintain a stable value relative to the US dollar, while XRP is a separate digital asset used in various applications across the XRP Ledger and Ripple-related payment services.
A stronger regulatory position for Ripple could support future institutional relationships, but it does not guarantee that every development will trigger immediate buying pressure for XRP.
This distinction has also featured in wider discussions about Ripple’s banking partnerships. Bitcoinist previously examined the difference between Ripple’s institutional relationships and actual XRP usage in its report, Ripple’s Bank Partner Count Does Not Mean 300 Banks Are Using XRP.
Ripple’s final banking approval arrives as the company prepares for its Swell 2026 conference in New York, scheduled for October 27–29. The event brings together participants from traditional finance, the cryptocurrency sector, and the XRP ecosystem.
Market participants will likely watch for updates on the trust bank’s operational rollout, institutional custody services, and the continued adoption of RLUSD.
The key question for XRP holders is whether Ripple’s growing regulated infrastructure eventually leads to greater activity that directly involves the token. That outcome is possible, but it is not automatic.
As Bitcoinist has previously discussed in its coverage of Ripple’s banking ambitions, regulatory access can strengthen a company’s position without guaranteeing a corresponding price move for its associated digital assets.
For now, Ripple has achieved a major regulatory milestone, while XRP’s subdued response suggests investors may be waiting for clearer evidence of how the development translates into token demand.
]]>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.
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.
Readers can follow related developments through Bitcoinist’s Bitcoin coverage.
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.
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.
For additional context, readers can explore Bitcoinist’s cryptocurrency coverage and its blockchain news.
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.
]]>The European Banking Authority labeled Circle’s USDC the first “significant” e-money token under MiCA. Starting November 12, the stablecoin moves from national supervisors to direct EBA oversight, bringing tougher capital rules and stronger redemption duties. Circle pursued an EU license and secured one, whereas Tether’s USDT skipped the process and remains outside the framework. ESMA has also set a three-month window for EU platforms to unwind non-compliant stablecoin exposure, so exchanges serving the bloc face an obvious choice.
Charles Schwab rolled out Schwab Crypto to all eligible US clients, offering Bitcoin and Ether at a 0.75% fee per trade. With around 35 million brokerage accounts, the move places crypto beside stocks and retirement savings in an app millions of Americans already use.
Yet the OCC found that all nine of the largest national banks have internal policies that let them restrict or deny services to digital-asset issuers, exchanges, and administrators. The review mandates nothing, but it puts the issue on the record and hands lawmakers and regulators documented grounds for action should de-banking persist.
MSCI approved criteria that could eject Strategy and Metaplanet from its equity benchmarks. The final roster arrives November 11, with any removals taking effect after the November 30 close. Passive funds tracking those benchmarks would then need to dump the shares. Both firms keep their valuations tied to Bitcoin held on their balance sheets, which sits awkwardly with how MSCI judges conventional businesses.
Patrick Witt, the final adviser steering the White House digital assets office, has left with no successor named, just as the SEC, CFTC and OCC all juggle active crypto rulemakings.
Meanwhile, SEC Trading and Markets Director Jamie Selway said five CFTC-registered exchanges have applied to become security futures exchanges, and at least four could list securities perpetual futures before the year ends. Those no-expiry contracts on individual stocks or indexes are popular offshore but do not yet exist in regulated US form.
]]>Dip buyers emerged over the weekend, and BTC now changes hands near $82,000, about 0.6% lower over seven days. Bitcoin’s share of the overall market stayed between 59.7% and 60.4%. The total crypto market capitalization sits near $2.76 trillion, down 2.1% on the week, while the fear and greed index cooled from 56 to a neutral 49.
Digital asset investment products shed $593.3 million. Ethereum-focused funds accounted for $320.1 million of that, versus $228.4 million for Bitcoin products. Ether itself slipped from a $2,489 open to a low of $2,336 on Sunday and now trades near $2,403, a 3.4% weekly loss. Among other majors, XRP fell 4.7% and Solana lost 3.5% ahead of its Alpenglow upgrade, which Anza scheduled for October 21 and says will cut finality from about 12.8 seconds to roughly 150 milliseconds.
Still, BlackRock’s crypto ETF assets swelled 63% in the third quarter to $79.6 billion, though that remains 23% beneath the level of a year ago. The asset manager also filed for an iShares Bitcoin Managed Protect ETF, which would target upside exposure to IBIT with a measure of downside cushioning.
MSCI confirmed a new screen for “non-operating” companies starting November 30, ending the temporary shield for firms holding more than half their assets in digital assets. A final list lands November 11. MSCI has named no one, but reports point to Strategy and Metaplanet. JPMorgan estimates Strategy could see up to $2.8 billion in outflows, and Michael Saylor has labeled the rule discriminatory.
The buying has not stopped. Strategy added 267 BTC, lifting its holdings to 848,517 BTC. Strive picked up 4,045 BTC, and BitMine acquired 12,535 ETH, pushing its stash beyond 6 million ETH.
The European Banking Authority designated Circle’s USDC as the first “significant” e-money token under MiCA, placing it under direct supervision from November 12. JPMorgan extended its JPM Coin deposit token to Ethereum, and Mastercard unveiled a multi-currency account for fiat and stablecoins, built on infrastructure from BVNK, which it acquired for about $1.8 billion. Allium data show stablecoin payments of roughly $482 billion in the first nine months of the year, up 45%.
In Washington, crypto adviser Patrick Witt is departing with no replacement named. The CLARITY Act has sat idle since failing a 49–50 cloture vote on September 15, and Congress is out until after the November 3 midterms.
]]>In an October 26 post on X, Buterin said he was comfortable with Kimi K3.1 deliberately leaving top-end offensive cyber capabilities out of its training data. His reasoning centers on time. The world, he argued, needs room to harden systems, re-examine old software and apply formal verification to new code before AI-driven attacks become routine.
Formal verification means mathematically checking that software meets its stated requirements, and Buterin has long promoted it as a way to catch weaknesses before deployment. In September he rejected the idea that AI hacking will make cybersecurity unwinnable, arguing automated verification can strengthen defenders.
He was not claiming the approach will stop anyone. Asked whether rival labs would build these capabilities regardless, he agreed that they will.
Moonshot, a Chinese startup, announced Kimi K3.1 Pro on October 23. It is already live in the company’s apps and API, and full model weights are scheduled for release by November 4. According to the company, developers stripped selected cyberattack-related data from both training and reinforcement learning while preserving general programming ability.
Moonshot reports a measurable trade-off on its internal exploit benchmark. A version without the restrictions completed 90.5% of tasks, against 81% for the shipped model, a gap of 9.5 percentage points. The company has not shown how that gap translates into real-world attack prevention. For context, the earlier Kimi K3 scored 33.3% on the same test.
On Terminal-Bench 4.0, the new model scored 65.7%. Moonshot lists 66.4% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 58.2% for GPT-6 Astra. A Highspeed variant is said to run two to three times faster than the standard version. All of these results come from Moonshot’s own testing.
Buterin’s broader concern is political rather than technical. He suggested that governments and tech companies could respond to a serious AI-related incident by locking down models, requiring Know Your Customer checks, and expanding surveillance. Access to advanced tools might then hinge on nationality, documents or credentials, leaving some people as second-, third- or fourth-class users.
His own projects point the other way. On October 16, he introduced a privacy-focused AI agent setup that combines Tor routing, anonymous payments through zkAPI and local prompt rewriting, aiming to limit what outside models learn about the person using them.
Independent evaluators have already looked at Moonshot’s models. In July, the US Center for AI Standards and Innovation and the UK AI Security Institute tested Kimi K3 against simulated cyberattacks. It trailed leading systems yet could still attempt offensive operations despite safeguards. In one simulated corporate-network attack, it averaged 17 of 32 steps, compared with 28.5 for the strongest US models tested. That assessment covered K3, not K3.1 Pro.
The debate Buterin is joining pits capability limits against access controls, and he clearly prefers the former. Whether a 9.5-point drop on one internal benchmark counts as meaningful protection is still unproven, and the open-weight release will let outsiders probe it.
]]>The developers had received two reports during October. One came from a user who lost money after approving what looked like an ordinary fee increase.
The issue lies in how the wallet handles payments that the network has not yet confirmed. Unlike a full Bitcoin node, Electrum depends on outside servers to supply transaction histories and relay payments. Before the patch, it accepted those servers’ reports about pending transactions without checking their signatures.
An attacker running one of those servers could catch a payment before it reached the Bitcoin network. The server then swapped it, inside the wallet’s history, for a counterfeit transaction that sent the user’s coins to an address the attacker controlled. The counterfeit carried invalid signatures, yet Electrum failed to notice.
The wallet displayed the fake as a pending payment. Nothing had been stolen at that point; the trap closed only when the user tried to speed things up. Bitcoin lets senders replace an unconfirmed payment with a higher-fee version, a feature known as Replace-by-Fee. If the user chose it, Electrum could pick up the fraudulent transaction and sign a valid replacement that delivered the coins to the thief.
Some details suggest a deliberate operation. In one reported case, the planted transaction included no fee whatsoever, which made it look stuck and nudged the user toward a fee bump. Attackers also generated receiving addresses whose final four characters matched the legitimate destination, making the swap easy to miss during a quick glance.
The first report arrived on October 11 from a user with a two-of-three multisignature wallet secured by two Trezor hardware devices. That person had verified the genuine payment on both devices, then later spotted an unfamiliar outgoing transaction in the wallet’s history. No loss was reported in that case.
A second user reported on October 18 that they had raised the fee on a substituted transaction and lost money. The developers have not shared how much was taken, nor have they named the servers involved.
Electrum shipped version 4.8.3 on October 24. It adds signature checks for unconfirmed transactions that spend coins from the user’s own wallet. The fix landed six days after the report that involved stolen funds.
Older tech releases remain open to the attack whenever they connect to a malicious server. The developers say people who used only servers they trust, including servers they run themselves, were not affected.
The advice from the team is straightforward: upgrade to the latest version, and verify the receiving address and amount before signing any payment, including a fee increase. Checking the full address rather than just the beginning or end matters here, given the lookalike addresses reported.
]]>