ME News reports that on Sept. 26 (UTC+8), XRP Ledger released xrpld 3.4.1 to address issues tied to batch functionality, alongside broader stability enhancements. The XRP Ledger team urged validators and node operators to update as soon as possible. Developers said the problem did not impact mainnet operations and no funds were lost. The release includes the fixBatchV1_2 amendment, which currently has default support votes and a 94.29% consensus rate. Both the amendment and the batch feature have entered the activation window. Earlier, some validators switched their votes from yes to no in order to reset the voting timer for the Batch amendment. (Source: ODAILY)

US-listed spot Solana exchange-traded funds took in a record $80 million in net inflows in a single session, extending a buying streak to six straight days as SOL traded above $119. CryptoBriefing reported the $80 million figure on September 26, calling it the largest one-day inflow since spot Solana ETFs began trading. AMBCrypto separately said the inflows marked the sixth consecutive day of net buying and noted that SOL moved through the $119 level over the same period. Spot Solana ETFs are a newer addition to the US market, following the rollout of spot Bitcoin and spot Ethereum funds. For many investors, ETFs provide a regulated way to gain exposure through traditional brokerage and retirement accounts without directly holding tokens. Market participants often view multi-day inflow streaks as evidence of sustained demand rather than one-off positioning. In that context, a six-day run capped by a record single-day intake suggests interest in SOL exposure via ETF vehicles has been building beyond a single headline. AMBCrypto also referenced two unspecified metrics it believes could support a move toward $130 for SOL, without offering a firm forecast. The overlap between the record inflow and SOL's move above $119 does not establish causation; fund flows and spot prices frequently rise together during active trading periods. Solana has spent the past two years marketing itself as a high-throughput alternative to Ethereum for decentralized applications, drawing attention from both retail traders and institutional desks. The emergence of spot ETFs tied to SOL broadens access through traditional finance distribution channels, giving asset managers a regulated wrapper to add alongside existing crypto product lineups. Investors are likely to watch upcoming daily flow reports to gauge whether the $80 million print marks a peak or the start of a longer accumulation phase. Market impact: The record one-day inflow points to growing appetite for regulated SOL exposure, echoing demand patterns previously seen in Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF products. If inflows persist, they could influence liquidity conditions in SOL markets as issuers source underlying exposure, potentially affecting spot volumes and volatility. Continued demand may also encourage additional Solana-linked offerings, including new fund structures and derivatives. A sharp reversal in flows, by contrast, would suggest the surge reflected short-term positioning rather than a lasting shift in allocation. FAQ • How large was the record inflow? CryptoBriefing reported $80 million in a single day. • How long has the inflow streak lasted? AMBCrypto reported six consecutive trading days. • Did SOL's price move alongside the flows? AMBCrypto said SOL broke above $119 during the same window, without confirmed causation. • Does this data predict SOL's next move? AMBCrypto cited two metrics it said could support a move toward $130, but no outcome is confirmed and this article does not make price predictions. Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Sophia Bennett. Republished with permission. View the original on AltcoinGordon →

U.S.-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs attracted $2.39 billion of net inflows this week, the strongest weekly tally so far in 2026. These funds trade like regular equities while holding Bitcoin on behalf of investors. Data from SoSoValue show inflows started at $998.95 million on Monday, September 21, then eased in every subsequent session, ending Friday at $134.47 million—about 87% below Monday's level. Even so, Friday marked the seventh consecutive day of net additions. Monday's jump came after Bitcoin gained 6.7% on its heaviest trading volume since August 21. Roughly $262 million in short positions were liquidated within an hour, a move that forced buying and added to the rally. ETF inflows reappeared after the Federal Reserve lifted its target rate range to 3.75%–4% on September 16. A later S&P Global business survey pointed to the fastest U.S. growth since July 2021. The 10-year Treasury yield moved above 5%, and Bitcoin slipped below $84,000 within an hour. Bitcoin was last near $84,241, down 0.06% over 24 hours. Total assets held by the ETFs stood at $108.42 billion. On-chain data also pointed to reduced liquid supply: CryptoQuant estimated about $2.52 billion in net BTC left major exchanges between September 22 and 24, a pattern typically associated with long-term storage. Accumulation among larger holders has continued. Santiment data show wallets holding 100–1,000 BTC have purchased 113,950 BTC since July 15. River reported long-term holders have added more than 3 million BTC since 2020, and said 81% of the supply—about 16.3 million BTC—has not moved in at least six months. Trading activity remains muted. Exchange volume is running 30% below early-year levels. River's September 23 report said ETFs had bought only about 18,000 BTC in September to date, below their monthly average since launch. River added that Bitcoin has climbed about 50% without a meaningful increase in demand, arguing that reduced turnover, rather than a surge of new buyers, has played the larger role. Attention now turns to September 30, when the August personal consumption expenditures inflation report is due. Economists expect a measurement change to pull inflation lower. River cautioned that the timing of a demand rebound remains impossible to predict.

Solana (SOL) has pushed through the $119 resistance level after multiple failed tries, climbing to $122—its highest price since January. The advance coincided with a six-session streak of net inflows into spot Solana ETFs, adding fresh support to the move. Earlier, SOL had already shown momentum when it rose to $116 as ETFs logged two straight sessions of net inflows. According to SoSoValue data, daily net inflows reached about $86 million on September 25. Bitwise led the day with more than $55 million, followed by Grayscale with $18 million. None of the nine funds tracked posted net outflows. Since September 18, spot Solana ETFs have drawn more than $235.8 million across six trading sessions. The steady demand appears to have helped SOL break through the overhead resistance, with attention now turning to whether broader market buyers will sustain the rally. Earlier, rising ETF inflows had been met by profit-taking from holders, and SOL slipped to $112 before rebounding. This time, selling pressure looks to be easing. CoinAnk data show Solana's Delta remained positive for two consecutive days, increasing from 560,000 to 4.8 million on September 26, signaling stronger buying pressure. CoinGlass figures also indicate exchange netflow turned negative, reaching roughly $9.07 million after two days of positive readings—suggesting more SOL moved off exchanges than onto them. The next immediate test is $120. A sustained hold above that level, alongside continued ETF inflows and a positive Delta, could open a path toward $130. If SOL falls back below $120, the $115 area may come back into focus. Summary: SOL cleared $119 and reached $122 as spot ETF inflows extended to six trading sessions. A positive Delta and negative exchange netflow point to firmer demand, with $120 now the key level to watch.

MicroStrategy said it is seeking shareholder approval to begin paying daily dividends on several preferred securities, a move it argues could reduce reinvestment lag and support demand for the instruments. In an announcement shared by Executive Chairman Michael Saylor on X, the company said the proposal would apply to STRD, STRK, STRC and STRF. If approved, holders would receive dividends daily, with payments running 24/7, including weekends. MicroStrategy acknowledged that daily payouts may raise questions around cash-flow discipline, but said the structure could improve market efficiency and liquidity while narrowing the gap between dividend accrual and reinvestment. The company also said the approach could lift demand for the underlying securities and potentially increase its Bitcoin per share price. Voting is scheduled to open on 5 October and close on 8 October. MicroStrategy said STRC would be the first to begin daily dividends in early November, with the remaining three securities expected to follow in January next year. The company did not outline any direct implications for MSTR common shares, which do not pay dividends. MicroStrategy said it expects the daily dividend framework to attract incremental buying in the four preferred securities, providing additional capital that could be used for further Bitcoin purchases, reinforcing its long-term BPS growth strategy. It added that daily payments may be paused if market conditions turn unfavorable. MSTR shares pulled back below $160 this week after peaking at $171 last week, following an 87% rally from August lows. The stock traded at $158 on Friday, down about 7.7% on the week, even as September remained broadly positive and the RSI moved back above its moving average. The retreat mirrored Bitcoin's decline below $84,000. Given MSTR's historically tight correlation with Bitcoin, the stock's next moves are still likely to be driven primarily by crypto supply-and-demand dynamics, even if MicroStrategy's preferred-share dividend plan supports sentiment around the company's broader Bitcoin accumulation strategy. The post "MicroStrategy News: Strategy Proposes Daily Dividends On All Its Securities" appeared first on The Coin Republic.

Grayscale's Zcash ETF (ZCSH) has surpassed $1 billion in assets under management less than a month after its debut, according to data cited in the report. The milestone was reached on September 24, following the fund's launch on August 25. The headline AUM figure was driven largely by legacy holdings and the token's rally rather than fresh investor cash. Cumulative net inflows totaled $306.12 million, implying that under one-third of reported assets came from net new money. ZCSH was created through the conversion of the firm's Zcash Trust, which had held ZEC since 2017. Those positions rolled into the ETF structure at launch. The fund cleared $500 million in AUM within roughly two weeks and then doubled to $1 billion in about another 16 days. ZEC's price action amplified the fund's asset value. The token was reported at $1,533 after gaining 92% over the past 30 days, and the data indicates ZEC has roughly doubled since ZCSH began trading. As ZEC appreciated, the market value of the ETF's existing holdings rose, allowing AUM to climb without equivalent net purchases from new investors. In Europe, 21Shares launched the region's first physically backed Zcash ETP, arriving alongside the rise in ZEC and the expansion of assets in ZCSH. Grayscale also said it has filed for a new product, the ZCSH High Income ETF. The filing outlines a high-income strategy but does not provide a launch date. The proposed ETF is not yet listed and has no reported trading activity. Regulatory approval is still required before it can begin trading. Across the broader crypto ETF market for the week ended September 24, Bitcoin ETFs recorded $2.25 billion of inflows and Ethereum ETFs took in $602.94 million. XRP ETFs saw $52.95 million, Solana ETFs attracted $101.55 million, and Hyperliquid ETFs added $6.02 million.

Evercrest Technologies has filed suit in British Columbia against LayerZero Labs, its Canadian affiliate and CEO Bryan Pellegrino, stemming from April's $292 million rsETH bridge exploit. The complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation, negligence and defamation, and seeks aggravated and punitive damages. Since the incident, users of Kelp have withdrawn more than $650 million, according to the report. Pellegrino publicly dismissed the lawsuit as meritless. The legal action lands as projects representing about $14.5 billion in assets said they would migrate from LayerZero to Chainlink's Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) as of Aug. 4. BitGo made up roughly $7.4 billion of that figure through WBTC and has named CCIP its exclusive crosschain provider for WBTC. LayerZero's incident report says that on April 18 attackers induced its verifier to approve a forged crosschain transfer. The company traced the breach to March, when a developer was socially engineered into cloning a malicious GitHub repository. From there, the attackers accessed LayerZero's RPC environment, poisoned two internal nodes and knocked an external RPC provider offline. With source-chain data corrupted, the verifier signed a message built on false information. The exploit led to 116,500 rsETH leaving Kelp's bridge. The bridge design required approval from LayerZero's single verifier. LayerZero said its onchain signature verification functioned as intended because the signature itself was valid, even though it attested to inaccurate underlying data. In its post-mortem, LayerZero said the single-verifier requirement was an application-level choice, while responsibility for the compromised RPC layer sat with LayerZero as operator. Evercrest disputes that framing, alleging LayerZero reviewed and approved the single-verifier setup in writing and told Kelp in February 2024 that the default configuration posed no issue. The suit also claims LayerZero warned USDT0 about risks tied to default verifier configurations but did not provide Kelp with a comparable warning. These allegations have not been tested in court. LayerZero says Kelp previously used a two-of-two configuration and later moved to a one-of-one setup. The company has since changed its verifier policy: it will not sign on any channel where it is the only required signer, and it now requires multiple independent RPC sources across providers and geographies. By Aug. 4, LayerZero said it had moved default pathways on both versions of its endpoint to a minimum of three verifiers, though applications can still implement custom configurations at the protocol level. In May, LayerZero said allowing its verifier to act alone on high-value transfers had been a mistake, and estimated the incident impacted about 0.14% of applications on its network. The migration totals were boosted by moves involving Mantle, Kelp's rsETH and Lombard, with Chainlink placing announced migrations near $15 billion. Kelp said its own migration was still in progress, meaning announced amounts and completed transfers should be viewed separately. Separately, Wyoming's Stable Token Commission moved its state-issued FRNT token off LayerZero in August and signed a multiyear agreement naming CCIP as its exclusive crosschain provider. Commission CISO Keith Lawhorn said on Sept. 14 the review was prompted by the Kelp attack and identified issues in access controls, private-key management and incident disclosures. LayerZero has partially disputed those findings. LayerZero continues to operate across 96 chains. DefiLlama reported $9.5 billion in bridged volume through LayerZero over the past 30 days. The British Columbia court will ultimately weigh which party owed the safeguards tied to the integration.

CoinDesk reports that on Sept. 25, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Corporation Finance published a new FAQ outlining how existing securities laws may apply to staking-related tokens, redeemable wrapped assets, token repurchases, and networks that have become functional. The agency stressed the guidance reflects staff views only, does not create new rules, and is not a formal Commission action. Staking receipts and wrapped tokens: ownership and custody are key SEC staff said a token may be treated as a "digital instrument" rather than a security when it simply evidences ownership of an underlying digital asset, subject to specific conditions. The analysis turns on the rights the token conveys and how the underlying asset is held—not the token's label. Under the staff's framework, the receipt token should only confirm that a defined quantity of assets has been deposited, with the holder retaining ownership. It must not change the underlying asset's original rights or add financial returns. The issuer also must not treat the deposited assets as its own or transfer, lend, pledge, or otherwise use them, and the assets cannot be exposed to claims from the issuer's creditors. The staff said the same approach applies to redeemable wrapped assets. Protocol-based liquid staking may require separate analysis For tokens issued by protocol-based liquid staking providers, staff said they may, in certain circumstances, be viewed as "digital commodities" when their value is tied to the performance of an already-operational crypto system and to market supply-and-demand dynamics. The FAQ adds that even if holders receive rewards generated by the underlying staked assets, that does not necessarily mean the voucher token itself creates the right to rewards or determines the amount. The central question, staff said, is whether the token introduces new yield commitments. Functional networks and shifting legal analysis The staff also addressed tokens that may have been sold in early stages alongside investment contracts, noting the securities analysis may evolve as a network becomes functional. Once a crypto system is operational, ongoing activities such as cybersecurity, maintenance, upgrades, development funding, and efforts to grow usage do not automatically amount to the "essential managerial efforts" investors rely on under the Howey test. Even an issuer's commitment to keep providing these services does not, by itself, satisfy Howey. Whether a network has achieved "functionality," the staff said, depends on the specific commitments made to buyers before purchase. The FAQ cautions against assuming a token has moved beyond its original investment-contract analysis without weighing the project team's early statements. Token buybacks: facts and timing matter On repurchases, staff distinguished between pre-functional and functional stages. If a crypto system is already functional, an issuer's announcement of a buyback of a non-security token does not by itself amount to a promise to generate returns through managerial efforts. Before functionality, staff said, describing a buyback as producing income or returns could affect the securities-law assessment. On marketing, the FAQ draws boundaries: describing current network uses generally is not a promise of returns, and discussing potential future features in broad terms—without tying them to profits—is less likely to be viewed as an "essential managerial efforts" commitment. Secondary-market listing is not automatically promotion The FAQ also states that a U.S. platform listing a token for secondary trading does not automatically become a "promoter" of that token. Whether it is a promoter depends on whether it meets the definition under Rule 405 of the Securities Act. The SEC emphasized the FAQ has no legal effect, does not change federal securities laws, and has not been formally approved or disapproved by the Commission. The stated purpose is to clarify parts of the crypto assets framework released in March.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has updated its guidance to stress that token buybacks, network upgrades and related marketing claims do not, by themselves, make a crypto asset a security. The agency said routine activity on a functioning network is generally distinct from conduct or statements that lead purchasers to reasonably expect profits driven by a development team's efforts. In a new FAQ from the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, the agency said that announcing a token buyback on an operating network does not alone create an "investment contract." The analysis can shift when a network is still incomplete and promoters frame buybacks as a potential source of returns. In that context, the purpose of the buyback and the surrounding claims carry more weight than the mere fact of repurchases. The guidance also covers ongoing development after launch. The SEC indicated that developers can secure systems, maintain services and improve functionality without automatically creating the kind of managerial reliance considered under the Howey test. Efforts to encourage usage of an operating network similarly do not necessarily amount to the type of reliance that would point toward securities treatment. The agency drew a line between describing how a network is used today and promoting token profit potential. Marketing existing network functionality typically does not cause buyers to expect profits from a project team's managerial work. Projects may discuss planned features as well, as long as those statements are not pitched as investment opportunities. Even so, the SEC emphasized that there is no one-size-fits-all outcome. Its assessment depends on the network's condition, what the project says, and what purchasers reasonably expect. Labeling activity as an "upgrade" or calling purchases a "buyback" does not settle a token's legal status; the SEC said it will evaluate the surrounding facts under existing securities law. The FAQ builds on the SEC's March interpretation on how federal securities laws apply to certain crypto assets and transactions, which provides the broader framework for the division's answers on buybacks, ongoing development and promotional statements. The update comes after the Clarity Act failed to advance in the Senate, leaving regulators to address industry questions through guidance under current authority. Separately, staff at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission updated guidance for regulated firms that handle customer funds and maintain records. The CFTC addressed investments in tokenized versions of permitted assets and the use of blockchains for recordkeeping. Firms must still meet applicable investment and custody requirements when using tokenized assets. Firms that keep records on blockchains must also be able to produce those records even if a network or block explorer stops working. Overall, the SEC said the key question remains tied to each project's conduct and claims. Buybacks and network upgrades alone do not determine whether purchasers are led to expect profits from a team's efforts.