Blockchain & Digital Assets Weekly Briefing - Week 42
- danae317
- Oct 17
- 20 min read
Week ending 17th October 2025
This week in digital assets, traditional finance and crypto continue to converge. Major banks are exploring stablecoins pegged to G7 currencies, signaling institutional interest. Erebor Bank secures U.S. federal approval, highlighting a shift toward crypto-friendly regulation. Eric Trump aims to tokenize real estate through World Liberty Financial, while Square enables Bitcoin purchases at Compass Coffee. Meanwhile, Citi announces plans for crypto custody in 2026, and we break down the October 10 market crash in our post-mortem analysis.
Major banks join forces to explore stablecoins pegged to G7 currencies.
Erebor bank wins U.S. federal approval, marking a shift in crypto-friendly regulation.
Eric Trump moves to tokenize real estate through World Liberty Financial.
Square makes first bitcoin coffee purchase a reality with Compass Coffee.
Citi to launch crypto custody in 2026 — a bet on institutional trust.
Beyond the Brief
Major banks join forces to explore stablecoins pegged to G7 currencies
Ten leading global banks — including Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, UBS, Citi, MUFG, Barclays, TD Bank, Santander, and BNP Paribas — are collaborating to explore issuing stablecoins backed 1:1 by major G7 currencies, according to a Reuters report published on October 10.
The initiative is still in its early exploratory phase. The banks aim to assess whether blockchain-based tokens can improve financial efficiency, particularly in cross-border payments and settlement, while maintaining full regulatory compliance.
Stablecoins, which are digital assets tied to fiat currencies, have grown rapidly in recent years, dominated by private issuers such as Tether (USDT) and Circle (USDC). Traditional banks’ involvement could represent an effort to bring regulated, institution-grade versions of these digital currencies into the mainstream financial system.
Currently, the majority of stablecoin usage remains confined to crypto trading rather than everyday payments. A Boston Consulting Group estimate cited by Reuters suggests that roughly 90% of stablecoin activity occurs within the crypto ecosystem.
Other banks, such as Société Générale, have already launched limited pilot stablecoins, and a separate European consortium including ING and UniCredit is developing a euro-backed token.
Why This Matters
Transatlantic Cooperation:
The initiative brings together major U.S., European, and Asian banks — a rare show of coordination across regions that usually compete. It signals growing alignment on how to modernize global payments and settlements through digital money.
Strategic Timing:
The exploration follows the recent meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, where both leaders reaffirmed a joint “Tech Prosperity Deal.” That agreement emphasized collaboration in digital finance, AI, and emerging technologies — highlighting how financial innovation has become part of a broader strategic and economic partnership.
Regulatory and Geopolitical Significance:
By moving together, major banks may help shape international standards for digital money before private stablecoin issuers or Big Tech firms do. It also underscores how digital assets are becoming a tool of economic diplomacy between allied economies.
Challenge to Crypto Dominance:
A coordinated bank-led stablecoin model could introduce a more regulated alternative to privately issued tokens like Tether and USDC, potentially reshaping the digital asset landscape.
Europe’s Banking Sector Steps Further In
In a further nod to the institutional push into digital money, French banking group ODDO BHF has announced its own euro-backed stablecoin, “EUROD”, launched under the EU’s MiCA regime.
The token is designed to be fully redeemable at par (one EUROD = one euro) and will be listed on the Spanish crypto exchange Bit2Me.
According to the bank’s white paper, ODDO BHF will hold reserves in euros and may invest part of the backing (up to 70 %) in highly liquid, low-risk assets. This development demonstrates that while some institutions are still exploring stablecoin models, others — particularly in Europe — are already moving from experimentation to implementation, using regulation as a bridge between traditional banking and digital finance.
Erebor bank wins U.S. federal approval, marking a shift in crypto-friendly regulation
In a landmark decision for the intersection of technology and finance, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has granted conditional approval to Erebor, a new digital-first bank aimed at serving the crypto, AI, and defense sectors. The move highlights a growing openness among U.S. regulators to institutions that blend traditional banking with emerging technologies — though not without political and regulatory scrutiny.
“Today’s decision is also proof that the OCC under my leadership does not impose blanket barriers to banks that want to engage in digital asset activities." said Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould.
What’s happening: the basics
Erebor has received preliminary OCC approval for a national bank charter.
The bank is founded by Palmer Luckey (Anduril) and Joe Lonsdale (Palantir cofounder), with backing from Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund and other venture investors.
Capitalized at about $275 million, Erebor will focus on firms in crypto, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and defense.
Business model and services (from OCC letter): The bank will be a full-service, insured national bank targeting technology companies and ultra-high-net-worth individuals using virtual currencies. It plans to offer a variety of lending and deposit products as well as related services. The bank may also hold non-asset-backed virtual currencies on its balance sheet to pay transaction fees (“gas fees”).
It will operate as a digital-first institution based in Columbus, Ohio, offering services to businesses and investors in those innovation-driven sectors.
The OCC’s conditional approval requires Erebor to maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 12% during its first three years — a stricter standard than most new banks (meaning $12 in core capital for every $100 in assets, when most new banks are required to maintain a Tier 1 leverage ration between 4-8%).
Why it matters: momentum builds for digital-asset banking
A broader regulatory shift
Erebor’s approval lands amid a wave of fintech and digital-asset firms seeking U.S. charters to expand banking and payments capabilities:
Coinbase is applying for an OCC trust charter to grow its payments and custody business.
Stripe’s Bridge unit is pursuing a federal banking charter ahead of forthcoming stablecoin regulations.
Checkout.com has already secured a U.S. bank charter to streamline card payment processing and direct Federal Reserve access.
Together, these moves reflect a new regulatory landscape: rather than resisting fintech and crypto entrants, U.S. authorities are beginning to formalize their participation in the federal banking system — albeit under tighter supervision.
Politics and optics: not a neutral venture
Erebor’s leadership adds a political layer to the story. Founders Luckey and Lonsdale, alongside investor Peter Thiel, are high-profile figures in conservative and defense-tech circles.
The OCC’s approval will likely face close scrutiny from lawmakers wary of political influence in financial regulation, particularly given the founders’ ties to Trump-aligned networks.
Execution risk: the real test lies ahead
While Erebor’s charter marks progress, conditional approval is not full authorization. The bank must still meet FDIC insurance and compliance requirements, maintain capital adequacy, and prove it can manage risks tied to crypto exposure, AI-driven clients, and defense-sector financing.
Failure in any of these areas could set back broader efforts to normalize digital-asset banking within the U.S. regulatory framework.
Eric Trump moves to tokenize real estate through World Liberty Financial
In a recent announcement, Eric Trump—co-founder of the DeFi protocol World Liberty Financial (WLFI)—confirmed that he is working on a project to tokenize real estate linked to an under-development building. While the idea taps into a growing trend in blockchain finance, the revelation raises as many questions as it does possibilities.
A glimpse into the plan
During a preview of a full interview set to air on October 21, Trump described ambitions to digitize property ownership using WLFI’s infrastructure and its U.S. dollar stablecoin USD1. He proposed offering fractional investment access—potentially allowing “micro-shares” starting from amounts like $1,000—and coupling participation with perks such as hotel or property privileges.
His pitch is straightforward: bypass traditional lenders (e.g. big banks) and open property ownership to a broader community of public supporters—not just wealthy institutions.
Strengths & promise
a. Democratizing access
One of the biggest attractions is the promise of lowering barriers. Real estate is typically an asset class dominated by wealthy or institutional players; fragmented tokenization could allow smaller, retail investors in.
b. Liquidity and efficiency
Tokenized real estate—when properly structured—allows for more seamless secondary trading and decreased friction in transfers (e.g. via smart contracts), potentially unlocking liquidity in traditionally illiquid assets.
c. Strategic branding & network effects
Eric Trump is leveraging the Trump name and network to generate interest. Coupled with the WLFI brand and infrastructure, the move could attract early adopters, media attention, and capital.
Risks, gaps, and red flags
Regulatory environment
Tokenizing real estate intersects with securities laws, property law, and financial regulation—especially in the U.S. The project must navigate complex frameworks (SEC, state real estate laws, disclosures) or risk running afoul of regulators.
Operational execution risk
Even with a vision, real estate tokenization is not trivial: setting up secure smart contracts, ensuring title recognition, managing legal transfers, custody, and audits—all require sophisticated operational rigor.
Token & stablecoin risk
Because the financial plumbing relies on WLFI’s USD1 stablecoin, the project inherits all the risks tied to it (reserve backing, audit credibility, stability mechanisms). Any issues in the stablecoin could ripple into the real estate application.
Final thoughts
Eric Trump’s confirmation of a real estate tokenization effort signals an ambitious bid to meld real estate and crypto infrastructure. It’s a natural next frontier: making property ownership more fluid and democratized. But enthusiasm should be tempered by caution. Until the project publishes concrete architecture, legal structuring, audit frameworks, and governance models, it remains speculative.
For a digital-assets audience, it’s a story to watch. If executed well, it could influence how real estate is financed in the crypto era. If done poorly, it may become a cautionary example of hype without substance.
Square makes first bitcoin coffee purchase a reality with Compass Coffee
In a notable test of mainstream crypto payments, Square (a subsidiary of Block, Inc.) has enabled one of its merchants to accept Bitcoin directly via a standard register. Compass Coffee, a café chain in Washington, D.C., conducted the first live transactions, using the Lightning Network to deliver near-instant payments. This event represents a symbolic—and technically meaningful—step toward bridging everyday retail and digital assets.
What Happened
Pilot launch at Compass Coffee: During DC Fintech Week, Compass Coffee became the first merchant globally to accept Bitcoin through a standard Square terminal.
Lightning Network in action: The transactions were processed over Bitcoin’s Lightning Network, allowing them to clear instantly at the point of sale.
Sales and conversion options: As part of the rollout, beginning November 10, merchants using Square will be able to accept Bitcoin and convert up to 50% of daily sales into BTC, with zero processing fees for the first year.
Merchants’ and users’ experience: Compass Coffee reported successful testing from multiple wallets, stating that the process was fast and reliable.
Why It Matters — Potential & Challenges
Upside: Lower Friction, Broader Access
Reduced costs for small merchants: Traditional card payments incur interchange and network fees. If Bitcoin payments become frictionless, small businesses might benefit.
New adoption vectors: Acceptance at everyday touchpoints like cafés could drive more user exposure and confidence in crypto as a payment method.
Greater flexibility: The capability to convert only a share of sales into BTC gives merchants control over exposure to crypto volatility.
Headwinds & Caveats
Scalability and consistency: While the Lightning Network enables fast operations, adoption at scale demands mature infrastructure, wallet compatibility, and robust UX across devices.
Regulation and tax uncertainty: The regulatory landscape for accepting and processing Bitcoin remains uneven. Issues like how micro-payments are taxed could complicate adoption.
Merchant incentives: Many businesses may hesitate unless processing costs, volatility exposure, and integration burdens are clearly offset by benefits.
User base constraints: Bitcoin adoption in U.S. retail is still niche. The real growth may lie in regions where crypto already acts as a financial alternative (e.g., in emerging markets).
Citi to launch crypto custody in 2026 — a bet on institutional trust
Citi Steps Into Crypto Custody
Citigroup, one of the world’s largest banking institutions with over $2 trillion in assets and a global presence spanning 100+ countries, is preparing to offer crypto custody services in 2026. Known primarily for its traditional banking and investment services, Citi has quietly been building digital-asset capabilities over the past few years, including exploring tokenized deposits and stablecoin initiatives.
The bank’s upcoming custody service will allow institutional clients, such as asset managers, to securely hold native digital assets like Bitcoin and Ether. Rather than relying solely on internal infrastructure, Citi plans a hybrid model that combines in-house systems with third-party solutions to manage different types of digital assets efficiently.
In parallel, Citi is exploring stablecoin issuance, though tokenized deposits remain its immediate priority.
Why This Matters
For decades, traditional banks and crypto infrastructures have occupied separate universes. By stepping into custody, Citi intends to bridge that gap. A major global bank managing crypto assets could help address two perennial hurdles in institutional adoption:
Trust & Compliance – Many traditional investors are wary of crypto firms’ security and regulatory track records. A bank-backed custody offering could lower perceived risk.
On-ramp Infrastructure – Having a legacy financial institution provide custody closes part of the integration gap between fiat-based finance and blockchain-native assets.
Still, execution is far from guaranteed. Success hinges on risk controls, legal frameworks, and delivering a product that meets institutional standards without inheriting crypto’s baggage.
The Competitive Landscape
Citi won’t be alone in this league. Some banks already offer crypto custody, and others are circling. Yet, peer institutions display mixed appetite. JPMorgan, for instance, has ruled out custody, even as it engages with digital-asset strategies.
Meanwhile, a consortium of major banks—among them Citi—is jointly exploring stablecoins pegged to G7 currencies. The fact that multiple blue-chip institutions are investigating stablecoins and custody suggests a more broad-based pivot into digital assets.
Beyond the Brief
POST-MORTEM ANALYSIS: October 10 Crypto Market Crash - Geopolitical Shock, Liquidity Evaporation, and Systemic Vulnerabilities
On October 10, 2025, the cryptocurrency market experienced its most severe single-day liquidation event in history, with over $19 billion in leveraged positions wiped out across major exchanges. Triggered by U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement of 100% tariffs on Chinese imports—escalating ongoing trade tensions—the event erased approximately $500–850 billion in total market capitalization within hours. Bitcoin plummeted 10–12% to a low of $104,782, while altcoins like Ethereum, Solana, and XRP suffered 15–30% declines. Smaller tokens, including Sui and Cosmos, endured extreme flash crashes to “near-zero” levels on Binance due to liquidity failures.
This report provides a detailed post-mortem, drawing on market data, on-chain analytics, and trader sentiment. Key findings highlight the interplay of geopolitical catalysts, market maker (MM) reactions—particularly liquidity withdrawal and spread widening—and structural risks like thin order books and auto-deleveraging (ADL). While the crash exposed crypto’s vulnerability to macro shocks, it also demonstrated rapid recovery potential, with Bitcoin rebounding to over $115,000 by October 13.
A. Event Overview and Timeline
The crash unfolded rapidly on a low-liquidity Friday afternoon (U.S. time), amplifying its severity. Below is a chronological breakdown:
This timeline underscores the “flash” nature: A 10% BTC dip snowballed into a systemic purge due to leverage (up to 100x) and weekend illiquidity.
B. Immediate Causes: Geopolitical Trigger and Leverage Amplification
Geopolitical Catalyst
The primary catalyst for the crash was President Trump’s announcement on Truth Social at 23:39 UTC on October 10, 2025, imposing 100% tariffs on Chinese imports effective November 1, alongside new export controls on critical software. This move was a direct response to China’s earlier announcement of rare earth export restrictions, which threatened global supply chains for semiconductors and cryptocurrency mining hardware. Framed as a retaliation to China’s “hostile” actions, Trump’s decision effectively ended a fragile U.S.-China trade truce established in August 2025, reigniting fears of a full-scale trade war reminiscent of the 2018–2019 period, which saw crypto markets drop 20–30%. The 2025 crash was magnified by the crypto market’s unprecedented $3.8 trillion capitalization, making the absolute dollar impact far larger.
The announcement sent shockwaves through global financial markets, with the S&P 500 falling 2.7%—its worst day since April 2025—and the tech-heavy Nasdaq dropping 3.6%. Crypto’s increasing correlation with traditional markets (approximately 0.7 with the Nasdaq) meant it was not immune to this macro shock. Despite Bitcoin’s 60% dominance in the crypto market, it offered little insulation, as risk-off sentiment drove capital to stablecoins like USDT, which saw a 150% surge in trading volume as investors sought safety.
Leverage and Liquidation Cascade
The mechanics of perpetual futures (perps) were central to the crash’s severity, as they facilitated the use of high leverage—averaging 20–50x, with some traders pushing 100x—allowing outsized bets on price movements with minimal capital. According to CoinGlass, $19 billion in leveraged positions were liquidated, with 90% being long positions (bets on price increases), a scale 20 times larger than the $1 billion liquidated during the 2020 COVID crash. This cascade was driven by a feedback loop of leverage and illiquidity:
Initial Price Shock: Trump’s tariff announcement triggered an immediate 5–7% drop in BTC (from ~$122,000 to ~$114,000), a move sufficient to breach stop-loss thresholds and trigger margin calls for highly leveraged traders. For example, a trader with a $10,000 margin at 50x leverage controlling a $500,000 position would face liquidation with just a 2% price drop, as their margin would be wiped out.
Forced Sales and Thin Order Books: Liquidated positions led to automatic sell orders, which hit severely depleted order books. With market makers pulling liquidity, there were insufficient buy orders to absorb the sell-off. A single 5-minute price candle on Binance saw 12,000 BTC (~$1.4 billion) sold, illustrating the overwhelming sell pressure.
Broad Impact: The cascade liquidated $5 billion in BTC positions, $4 billion in ETH, $2 billion in SOL, and billions more across altcoins, affecting 1.6 million traders in hours.
Whale Activity: A Hyperliquid trader reportedly netted $190–200 million by shorting BTC and ETH just minutes before the announcement, raising suspicions of front-running or opportunistic timing. While not proven manipulative, this highlights the influence of large players in amplifying volatility.
The combination of high leverage and thin liquidity turned a manageable dip into a catastrophic purge, underscoring the fragility of over-leveraged markets during external shocks.
C. Liquidity Dynamics: MM Reactions, Withdrawal, and Spread Widening
Liquidity providers (LPs) and market makers (MMs), such as Wintermute, which handles approximately $9.5 billion in daily trading volume across 50+ exchanges, are critical to maintaining market stability by providing continuous buy and sell quotes in order books. During periods of uncertainty, MMs face heightened risks, including inventory losses (holding assets that plummet in value) and margin calls (exchange demands for additional capital to cover potential losses). To manage these risks, MMs may widen bid-ask spreads or withdraw liquidity entirely, both of which exacerbated the October 10 crash.
Key Market Maker Actions
Wintermute’s Pre-Crash Asset Transfers: In the hours leading up to Trump’s announcement (midday UTC, October 10), Wintermute executed significant asset movements, transferring over $700 million to Binance wallets, including $200 million in BTC (e.g., 479 BTC valued at ~$55 million and 767 BTC at ~$89 million). On-chain analytics from Arkham Intelligence flagged these transfers as unusually large, possibly a strategic “de-risking” move shifting to stablecoins in anticipation of volatility from escalating U.S.-China trade tensions. Wintermute’s CEO, Evgeny Gaevoy, rejected accusations of market manipulation, labeling them “baseless FUD” and attributing the transfers to routine hedging practices. While no evidence confirms insider knowledge of Trump’s announcement, the timing—hours before the tariff post—fueled speculation of proactive risk management.
Liquidity Withdrawal and Hollow Order Books: As the tariff news broke, Binance’s order books became “hollow,” with virtually no bid walls (buy orders) to absorb the flood of sell orders triggered by liquidations. Wintermute, as Binance’s primary MM, reportedly pulled buy orders, citing “intermittent delays” and heightened risk aversion amid the volatility. This withdrawal created a one-sided market dominated by sellers, particularly for altcoins. For example, SUI’s trading volume surged 294% as panic selling overwhelmed the market, but the absence of buy orders led to extreme price wicks, with some tokens dropping 80–99% momentarily. This liquidity vacuum was a key driver of the crash’s severity, as even small sell orders could move prices dramatically in the absence of counterbalancing bids.
Spread Widening: Prior to the crash, BTC’s bid-ask spreads on major exchanges like Binance and Bybit were tight, typically ranging from 0.01% to 0.05%, reflecting a liquid market. Post-announcement, spreads widened significantly to 0.5–1%, as MMs adjusted to protect against inventory risk—the potential loss from holding assets whose prices were plummeting. Wider spreads increased trading costs and slippage (the difference between expected and executed prices), making it more expensive for traders to enter or exit positions. In contrast, decentralized platforms like Hyperliquid leveraged their HLP liquidity pool to absorb liquidations at bargain prices, earning fees and stabilizing their market to some extent.
Impact on Alts
Altcoins, with their lower daily trading volumes ($100 million–$2 billion compared to BTC’s $50 billion), were particularly vulnerable to liquidity disruptions:
SUI: Dropped 87% from $3.80 to $0.50, worsened by a scheduled $144 million token unlock (44 million tokens released to investors), which added sell pressure at the worst possible moment. The token recovered to $2.76 (+450% from its low) within hours, driven by aggressive dip-buying and renewed DeFi activity.
ATOM: Plummeted 99.97% to $0.001 on Binance due to a glitchy wick, though the overall daily loss was 22% to $3.17. Prices remained stable on other exchanges like Coinbase and Kraken, indicating a Binance-specific failure rather than a collapse in ATOM’s fundamentals.
These extreme price movements were not reflective of fundamental weaknesses but rather microstructural breakdowns: Forced sales overwhelmed order books with no buyers to counteract them, highlighting the fragility of low-liquidity assets during panic events.
D. Systemic Mechanisms: ADL and Exchange Responses
Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) Activation
Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) is an automated mechanism used by exchanges as a last-resort safeguard to maintain financial stability during extreme market stress. In perpetual futures, which operate as zero-sum games where winners’ profits are directly funded by losers’ losses, massive liquidations can deplete an exchange’s insurance fund—a reserve pool built from trading fees to cover losses when liquidated traders cannot pay. When this fund is insufficient, ADL activates, forcing the partial closure of profitable positions on the opposite side of the trade (e.g., short positions when longs are liquidated) to offset the shortfall. Winners are prioritized for closure based on their unrealized profit size and leverage level, targeting the largest, most highly leveraged winners first to minimize systemic impact.
During the October 10 crash, liquidations overwhelmed insurance funds, with Binance’s estimated at ~$500 million. ADL was triggered across multiple platforms, including Hyperliquid, which reported 6,300 wallets affected, resulting in $1.23 billion in losses from closed winning positions. Bybit and Binance also confirmed ADL usage, though exact figures remain undisclosed. While ADL ensured exchange solvency by preventing unpayable debts, it frustrated traders, as profitable positions were forcibly reduced, limiting potential gains. For example, Hyperliquid’s HLP liquidity pool mitigated some damage by purchasing liquidated assets at low prices, generating profits for the platform. Critics argue that ADL unfairly penalizes prudent traders, prioritizing exchange survival over individual outcomes, but it remains a necessary evil to prevent systemic collapse.
Exchange-Specific Issues
Binance: The largest centralized exchange faced significant operational challenges, including user interface freezes, failed stop-loss executions, and “zero-bid” glitches where order books lacked buy orders, exacerbating flash crashes. Trading volume surged 70% during the crash, overwhelming the platform’s infrastructure. Co-founder Yi He issued a public apology for “transaction issues,” acknowledging the system’s failure to handle the spike effectively.
Hyperliquid/Bybit: These platforms managed the crisis more effectively, leveraging liquidity pools (Hyperliquid’s HLP) and robust ADL systems to absorb liquidations. However, they still saw over $2 billion in combined liquidations, indicating the scale of the event transcended individual exchange capabilities.
E. Broader Implications and Lessons Learned
The October 10, 2025, crash was a pivotal moment for the cryptocurrency market, acting as a “leverage detox” that purged $19 billion in over-leveraged positions and reset market volatility, with the VIX (a measure of market fear) surging by 25%. While devastating in its immediate impact, the event exposed critical vulnerabilities in the crypto ecosystem and provided valuable lessons for traders, exchanges, and regulators. At the same time, the market’s rapid recovery—Bitcoin climbing to $115,000 and altcoins rebounding 7–19% by October 13—demonstrated significant resilience and investor confidence in the sector’s long-term potential. Below, we explore the key implications and lessons in depth.
Zero-Sum Risks in Perpetual Futures
Perpetual futures, which dominate crypto trading volumes, operate as zero-sum games where every dollar won by one trader is lost by another. This structure relies on continuous liquidity to ensure winners can be paid, with market makers providing the buy and sell orders that maintain market stability. However, during the crash, MM withdrawals—such as Wintermute’s reported pullback of buy orders on Binance—disrupted this balance, leaving order books unable to absorb the $19 billion in liquidations. The resulting liquidity vacuum triggered extreme price volatility and forced the activation of Auto-Deleveraging (ADL), which closed profitable positions to cover insolvent losers. This process effectively turned winners into partial losers, as traders who had correctly anticipated market movements were penalized to maintain exchange solvency. The lesson is clear: The zero-sum nature of perps amplifies systemic risk during liquidity crises, necessitating stronger mechanisms to ensure MM participation and adequate insurance funds to buffer such events.
Altcoin Vulnerability and Speculative Dynamics
Altcoins, with their significantly lower trading volumes compared to Bitcoin ($100 million–$2 billion daily versus BTC’s $50 billion), proved far more vulnerable to the crash’s liquidity shocks. Tokens like SUI and ATOM experienced extreme flash crashes—SUI dropping 87% to $0.50 and ATOM momentarily hitting $0.001 on Binance—due to the absence of buy orders amid forced liquidations. These wicks were not reflective of a collapse in fundamentals but rather a failure of market microstructure: Thin order books could not withstand the sell pressure, particularly for SUI, which faced additional strain from a $144 million token unlock. Despite these drops, both tokens demonstrated resilience, with SUI recovering to $2.76 (a 450% rebound from its low) and ATOM to $3.52, driven by dip-buying and continued ecosystem activity. For instance, SUI’s DeFi total value locked (TVL) increased by 20% post-crash, reflecting ongoing adoption of its high-speed Layer-1 blockchain, while ATOM’s role in facilitating cross-chain interoperability within the $20 billion Cosmos ecosystem remained intact. This suggests that while altcoins are more speculative and trader-driven than BTC’s “digital gold” or ETH’s payment network utility, their underlying technological value supports recovery and long-term potential. The lesson here is that altcoins’ lower liquidity amplifies volatility, requiring traders to exercise caution and exchanges to bolster liquidity provision for smaller assets.
Macroeconomic Linkages and Geopolitical Exposure
The crash underscored the crypto market’s growing integration with traditional financial systems, as evidenced by its 0.7 correlation with the Nasdaq. The tariff announcement not only disrupted crypto but also triggered sharp declines in equity markets, highlighting crypto’s sensitivity to geopolitical and macroeconomic events. The proposed tariffs, which could increase costs for mining hardware and semiconductors, pose a potential 5–10% drag on the crypto market’s 2025 growth if prolonged, as supply chain disruptions may hinder adoption and investment. This event emphasizes the need for investors to monitor macroeconomic indicators—such as trade policies and equity market trends—alongside on-chain metrics, as external shocks can override technical bullishness (e.g., BTC’s pre-crash high of $122,000). The crypto market’s maturation as an asset class brings both opportunities and risks, requiring a more sophisticated approach to risk management that accounts for global economic dynamics.
Human and Psychological Toll
Beyond the financial devastation, the crash had a profound human impact, with reports of significant trader distress circulating on platforms like X. A particularly tragic case involved a Ukrainian crypto influencer whose suspected suicide was linked to financial losses, though details remain unverified. Social media amplified the emotional fallout, with posts decrying exchanges as a “rigged casino” garnering over 23,000 likes and reflecting widespread frustration among retail traders. The psychological toll of such events, particularly for traders using high leverage, underscores the urgent need for better education on the risks of speculative trading.
Positive Takeaways and Market Resilience
Despite the chaos, the crash revealed the crypto market’s underlying strength. The rapid rebound—BTC recovering to $115,000 (+7–10%) and altcoins like SUI and ATOM gaining 7–19% by October 13—demonstrated robust investor confidence and institutional dip-buying. Spot trading volume surged 150%, indicating a shift away from leveraged futures toward more stable, non-borrowed positions. This suggests that the market is learning to prioritize resilience over speculative excess. We remain optimistic, forecasting Bitcoin could reach $130,000 in the near term if tariff tensions ease, supported by strong on-chain fundamentals (e.g., $10 billion+ daily DeFi TVL and institutional ETF inflows). The crash, while painful, acted as a purge of unsustainable leverage, setting the stage for a healthier bull market.
Conclusion
The October 10, 2025, crash was not an unpredictable “black swan” but a predictable collision of geopolitical catalysts and structural vulnerabilities within the crypto market. Trump’s tariff announcement ignited panic, but excessive leverage, thin liquidity, and market maker withdrawals—such as Wintermute’s $700 million repositioning and spread widening—amplified the damage, resulting in a $19 billion liquidation cascade. These actions, while rational for MMs seeking to manage risk, eroded retail trust, with X posts labeling the market a “rigged casino.”
Yet, as Bitwise noted, “this felt different” for its speed rather than depth—a purge that cleansed speculative froth without derailing the broader bull market. With tariffs looming and crypto’s correlation to traditional markets growing, the industry must prioritize deeper liquidity, reduced leverage, and enhanced transparency to weather future macro storms. The rapid recovery signals a maturing market, but vigilance and reform are critical to sustaining its trajectory.
WHAT WE ARE READING (OR WATCHING)
The Stablecoin Standard
Stablecoiners Face the Reality of Lawmaking During a Shutdown
Paxos Fat-Fingers $300T of PayPal Stablecoin, Outpacing USD's $2.4T Supply
Stripe launches new products to drive stablecoins and agentic commerce into the mainstream
Tether’s New Lawsuit Could Redefine How Stablecoins Handle Law Enforcement Demands
Stripe - Introducing stablecoin payments for subscriptions
Governance Watch
Nigel Farage speaks at Cryptocurrency Expo
The Onboarding Wave
ETF Issuer Bitwise Just Said They Are Helping A Country To Buy Bitcoin
Binance CEO Richard Teng Just Said They Are Helping Multiple Countries To Buy Bitcoin For Their Reserves
JPMorgan on stablecoins, crypto custody and public blockchains
The Nakamoto Engine
Bitcoin vs. Gold: The Future of Central Bank Reserves by 2030
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink: Bitcoin and Crypto 'Serve Same Purpose as Gold'
The Ethereum & Altcoin Atlas
Ethereum Adds 16K Developers in 2025, Yet Solana Steals All the Hype
Crypto on the Balance Sheet
Saylor’s Strategy Resumes Bitcoin Splurge at Highest Price Ever
Metaplanet Value Falls Below Bitcoin Hoard as DAT Trade Unravels
The Tokenized Economy
FCA supports tokenisation to boost efficiency and innovation in asset management
BlackRock Developing Tokenization Tech Amid Bitcoin, Ethereum ETF Success
Beyond the Chain
MIT Grad Brothers’ Trial Puts Focus on ‘Wild West of Crypto’
Hyperliquid: The Little-Known Crypto Powerhouse Behind Billions in Trading
The Gold Trade: James H. Simons: Mathematics, Common Sense and Good Luck - 42:43
Plume Network gains SEC transfer agent status to bring TradFi onchain
This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Please do your own research or consult a licensed financial advisor before making investment decisions.
