News related to
demand

Abu Dhabi’s MDGH GMTN priced a one-billion dirham Reg S five-year bond at par, carrying a coupon of 4.20 per cent. The issuer tightened guidance from an initial 4.45 per cent, and book orders surpassed AED 4.7 billion, not counting joint lead manager interest, signalling strong investor demand.

The unsecured bond is guaranteed by Mamoura Diversified Global Holding, with settlement set for 23 October and a planned listing on the London Stock Exchange Main Market. Fitch is expected to assign an “AA” rating in line with Mamoura’s sovereign backing. The issuance was led by a syndicate including Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, Bank of China, Citi, Emirates NBD Capital, First Abu Dhabi Bank, Goldman Sachs International, HSBC, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, National Bank of Kuwait and Standard Chartered.

This city-currency issue follows a $750 million ten-year dollar bond issued less than ten days earlier by MDGH, priced at about 55 basis points over U. S. Treasuries under the same guarantee structure. That transaction underlined the group’s growing presence in global markets.

MDGH is wholly owned by Mubadala Investment Company and plays a central role in Abu Dhabi’s strategy to diversify its economic base. In its 2024 financials, the company reported revenues of AED 39,528 million and a net profit attributable to owners of AED 37,376 million, with total assets reaching AED 596,168 million.

Credit agencies currently align Mamoura’s rating with the sovereign, with Fitch affirming an “AA” rating and stable outlook in late 2023. Moody’s and S&P assign comparable ratings of Aa2 and AA respectively.

Analysts note that the new issue shows how Abu Dhabi-linked issuers are able to tap demand for high-grade Gulf debt amid tighter global credit markets. The bond’s tight pricing and oversubscription point to strong appetite among fixed-income investors for Gulf credits backed by sovereign guarantees.

By Girish Linganna The prisoner-hostage exchange between Israel and Hamas has been completed successfully, and many are calling it a major victory for peace. Twenty Israeli hostages returned home in exchange for about 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, aid started flowing back into Gaza, and guns fell silent after months of devastating conflict. But anyone familiar with […]

The article A House Built On Sand: The Fault Lines In Trump’s 20 Point Gaza Peace Plan appeared first on Latest India news, analysis and reports on Newspack by India Press Agency).

CJ Hetherington, CEO of Limitless Labs, has accused Binance of demanding 8 per cent of his project’s token supply and a multimillion-dollar deposit as conditions for listing. Binance, in a forceful rebuttal, called the allegations false and defamatory, and hinted at legal recourse.

Hetherington shared purported internal communications that outlined Binance’s demands: 1 % of the token supply for a day-one airdrop, 3 % for subsequent airdrops over six months, 1 % reserved for marketing, and another 3 % allocated to the BNB HODLer programme. He claimed Binance also asked for a $250,000 security deposit and required around $2 million in BNB as collateral. In total, he argued, these terms effectively extracted 8 % of total tokens in exchange for a listing.

Binance responded swiftly via its official X handle, stating it “does not profit” from token listings and that the content of Hetherington’s posts is “false and defamatory.” The exchange emphasised that it does not charge listing fees and that any required security deposits are typically refundable within one to two years. Binance also denied allegations of token dumping by its executives, calling them “entirely untrue and unsubstantiated.”

The exchange further asserted that Hetherington’s disclosures breached confidentiality, undermining trust and transparency in industry processes. It reserved the right to pursue legal action for what it characterised as unauthorised disclosures.

The dispute has drawn responses from industry observers. Mike Dudas, founder of 6MV, stated on X that he has seen Binance listing proposals with nearly identical terms in the past month and was able to talk about them because he did not sign a nondisclosure agreement. He implied the arrangement described by Hetherington reflects a recurring model.

Crypto analyst Howard Peng, by contrast, criticised Hetherington for publicising the discussions and labelled the move immature. Peng urged projects dissatisfied with listing proposals to walk away and suggested exploring alternative exchanges.

Binance founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao also weighed in, arguing that successful projects should attract listings without paying “fees.” He wrote that if a project must “beg an exchange to list,” it indicates weak demand and could invite scrutiny from within the community.

The exchange’s defence comes amid broader regulatory scrutiny of centralised exchanges and their listing practices. Some market participants argue that hidden costs and opaque listing criteria undermine fairness and can stifle innovation, especially for emerging projects. Others maintain that exchanges are entitled to protective mechanisms—such as collateral or token commitments—to mitigate risk and ensure project stability.

Multiple posts flooding social media demand accountability—users call for a regulator-led probe, the CEO’s arrest, and deep scrutiny of Binance’s internal systems. The outcry follows recent chaos around synthetic tokens USDe, BNSOL, and wBETH, which lost their pegs on Binance amid massive liquidations. Compensation is flowing, but the narrative now centers on whether the crash was a desperate scramble or a deeply orchestrated exploit.

When Binance announced it would pay $283 million to users affected by depegging and associated liquidations, it framed the move as a goodwill gesture to restore stability. The payout applies to users whose positions used USDe, BNSOL, or wBETH as collateral between 21:36 UTC and 22:16 UTC on October 10. The exchange said compensation covers the difference between liquidation price and market price at 00:00 UTC on October 11, plus fees. It also promised to improve its risk-control systems and change how its indices weigh collateral assets..

These remedial steps, however, have not assuaged skeptics. Analysts at Uphold argued the event was no accident: they see the crash as a coordinated exploit of a vulnerability in Binance’s unified margin system, in which USDe, BNSOL, and wBETH were accepted as collateral. Because the exchange valued collateral based on internal order-book data instead of aggregated external prices, they say the system could be manipulated from within the venue itself. That, they believe, allowed an attacker to locally crash prices and trigger a cascade of liquidations.

One widely cited theory points to timing. Binance announced on October 6 it would update its pricing mechanisms to rely more on external oracles, with the changes scheduled for October 14. The incident happened on October 10—right in the middle of that eight-day window. In effect, critics argue, the exchange had acknowledged the flaw but had not yet implemented the fix, leaving a vulnerability no one should have touched. On-chain data shows USDe dropped to as low as $0.65 on Binance while remaining near parity across other markets, and wBETH and BNSOL showed similar divergence. The fact that only these three tokens—and only on Binance—were massively disrupted raises the specter that this was a targeted strike, not a systemic weak spot.

The theory gains further support from social media researchers. A thread by a user called “ElonTrades” describes how roughly $60–90 million of USDe was dumped on Binance to manipulate its order book, triggering forced liquidations in unified-account positions. That thread also links to outsized short positions opened elsewhere in anticipation of a broad market drop. Combined, the strategy would allow the attacker to profit while setting off mayhem across crypto markets.

Binance has rejected claims of an external exploit. In its public statement, the company argues that extreme market volatility predated the depegs, and that local platform issues amplified rather than initiated the crash. It also suggests some of the price distortions stemmed from interface display glitches—tokens with very small values were rendered as zero on users’ screens—while others reflect execution of long-dormant limit orders. The company contends liquidation volume occurring on its platform was only a fraction of broader market activity.

Even some industry voices have pushed back against blanket condemnation of Binance. One analyst told reporters that attributing the crash entirely to internal failure is premature, and that extreme leverage and macro market turmoil may have interacted with, not originated from, the exchange’s anomalies.

Yet the optics are harsh and the damage is real. The crypto community remains intensely uneasy. Many traders point to how precisely the exploit—or crash—focused on three collateral tokens, how it preceded a planned patch, and how quickly the stains were cleaned up by compensation. To many, the $283 million seems less like accountability than a strategic PR move to calm markets and buy time.

BNB, the exchange’s native token, soared after the compensation announcement, reaching a high near $1,370. That rally suggests some market participants interpreted the payout as a signal that Binance could backstop risks if needed. But it has not quelled deeper anxieties: users are now demanding full transparency about trades, collateral decisions, and the CEO’s role in risk oversight.

Amanda, a margin trader who lost funds in the incident, told crypto forums: “This wasn’t a market tantrum. The order flow was too precise, too surgical. It felt like someone pulled the plug on us.” Other users posted examples of margin calls executed within fractions of seconds after the depeg, with little time or warning to react.

The sequence of events presents too many coincidences: a pricing flaw known and scheduled for repair, large collateral-related token dumps executed mid-window, massive liquidations cascading in an insular system, and a rapid compensation move. Taken together, the evidence aligns with a narrative of design-level risk exploited rather than location-level chaos.

If the worst scenario proves true—that Binance’s unified margin design was manipulable from inside its own infrastructure—the implications ripple far beyond a single crash. Centralized exchanges, hailed for their convenience and liquidity, might now be exposed as fragile ecosystems. Traders could demand stricter oversight, regulators more frequent audits, and entire collateral frameworks could be reassessed.

South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit has authorised a change in GOPAX’s executive leadership, clearing the way for Binance’s acquisition of 67 per cent of the local exchange and formally restoring its presence in the country. The decision comes after over two years of regulatory review and internal scrutiny.

The executive registration approval by the FIU establishes Binance as the controlling shareholder of GOPAX, resolving a key hurdle that had delayed the deal since its initiation in early 2023. By acquiescing to the change, South Korean authorities have allowed Binance’s re-entry into one of Asia’s most active cryptocurrency ecosystems.

When Binance first acquired the majority stake in GOPAX in February 2023, it sought to stabilise the exchange following a liquidity crisis tied to frozen customer deposits connected to the GoFi yield product. That crisis was traced to exposure to Genesis Global Capital, whose own collapse triggered withdrawals being halted. Binance undertook a capital injection to support GOPAX’s recovery while awaiting formal regulatory sign-off on executive changes.

The FIU’s prior hesitancy centred on concerns that Binance’s international compliance record could clash with South Korea’s anti-money laundering oversight. Legal pressure from U. S. authorities, including enforcement actions and substantial fines, had raised red flags among domestic regulators. But the FIU’s acceptance now signals that uncertainties over Binance’s compliance credentials have been sufficiently addressed.

Under South Korean law, exchanges must report changes in executive or representative roles to the FIU, which effectively acts as a gatekeeper in approving foreign capital in the local crypto sector. No separate screening mechanism exists for major shareholders, making the executive registration process a de facto test of suitability. Delays in this case were reportedly driven by repeated demands for supplemental documentation by regulators.

GOPAX is one of only five exchanges in South Korea authorised to conduct cash-crypto transactions under strict regulatory norms. With Binance now in control, GOPAX could compete more aggressively against dominant local players such as Upbit and Bithumb. Yet entrenched banking relationships and compliance frameworks will still pose barriers to market share gains.

The approval reflects a shift in Korea’s regulatory posture toward greater openness—especially for exchanges that have resolved international legal disputes. Binance’s own settlements regarding AML and market conduct issues appear to have alleviated domestic regulatory apprehension. The acceptance also underscores the FIU’s judgment that Binance’s structural changes and compliance assurances now align with South Korea’s regulatory expectations.

MAF Sukuk Ltd is launching a US$500 million, 10-year sukuk under Regulation S, with initial price thoughts set around US Treasuries plus 125 basis points. The securities will be backed by Majid Al Futtaim Properties as the obligor, while parent Majid Al Futtaim Holding offers a guarantee.

The offering adopts a wakala/murabaha structure and is expected to carry credit ratings of “BBB/BBB”, aligned with those of the guarantor. HSBC is acting as lead structuring bank, with the purpose of the funding geared towards expansion and refinancing of property development activities.

Majid Al Futtaim Holding, in its most recent credit review, retains its BBB rating and stable outlook, reflecting its scale of operations and diversified asset base. Fitch affirmed the rating in November 2024, citing growth across revenue and EBITDA. Majid Al Futtaim’s internal guidance confirms that capital allocation remains within the thresholds consistent with its BBB leverage metrics.

Investors familiar with corporate sukuk in the Gulf region view the 125 basis point spread as moderately tight for a 10-year tenor, particularly for a non-sovereign issuer in the real estate sector. The parent guarantee is crucial to bolster credit comfort, given that the issuer is a property development arm.

In recent years, Majid Al Futtaim has deployed Islamic capital markets for its financing needs. Its 2023 green bond issuance of US$500 million was aimed at refinancing an AED 800 million bond commitment, underlining a strategy to blend sustainability credentials with its capital structure. The group similarly has historically issued hybrid capital securities and sukuk in its debt portfolio.

The latest sukuk will be listed via MAF Sukuk Ltd, which already carries a BBB long-term rating. The listing via a special purpose issuer isolates the structure from direct group operations, while the parent guarantee transfers credit risk back to the overarching entity.

Major risks for the deal rest on cyclical pressures in real estate markets, tenant defaults, and development cost inflation. Majid Al Futtaim Properties has disclosed in its base prospectus the possibility of cost overruns, land title constraints, and tenant concentration as material risks. The group also faces competitive dynamics in its markets where some rivals are state-backed.

Mohamed Futtah, a regional fixed-income strategist, commented that “a 10-year sukuk at T+125bp for a BBB group guarantee is ambitious, but could succeed under strong demand, especially from Gulf and Asia Islamic investors seeking yield in a rate environment that is otherwise compressed.”

By K Raveendran Oil prices fell to their lowest level in five months on Tuesday, continuing a slide that has gathered pace over the past several weeks. The benchmark Brent and West Texas Intermediate crude futures have both dipped significantly, erasing much of the year’s earlier gains. In stark contrast, gold has soared to an […]

The article Gold Feeds On Oil’s Misfortune; One Hits The Roof, The Other Down In The Dumps appeared first on Latest India news, analysis and reports on Newspack by India Press Agency).

Traders on the U. S. prediction market Kalshi are assigning a 55 percent chance that Bitcoin will exceed $130,000 by the end of 2025, with probabilities of 34 percent for surpassing $140,000 and 24 percent for topping $150,000. That places the market’s expected annual high at roughly $132,000.

Those figures reflect a steadily intensifying optimism about Bitcoin’s trajectory, drawing attention from institutional and retail participants alike. Kalshi’s “How high will Bitcoin get this year?” market is driving price discovery around extreme outcomes for the cryptocurrency.

That optimism today sits alongside growing institutional flows into related assets. Bitcoin spot ETF issuers have been attracting multi-billion dollar inflows across several jurisdictions; analysts view that as a cornerstone of structural demand, tightening supply in spot markets. At the same time, the derivatives market is registering sharply skewed positioning in favour of upside moves, especially in out-of-the-money call options.

Crypto research platforms note that exchange reserves of Bitcoin are at multi-year lows, meaning a smaller buffer for large sell orders to exert downward pressure. Some large holders are moving coins to cold storage or long-term custody, reducing the circulating float further. That dynamic can magnify even moderate inflows into a pronounced price rise.

Macroeconomic factors are reinforcing these tailwinds. Markets broadly expect the U. S. Federal Reserve to shift toward a less restrictive stance in the months ahead, which would lower the opportunity cost of holding a risk asset like Bitcoin. Inflation pressures, geopolitical uncertainty, and currency devaluation narratives have been pushing capital toward non-sovereign stores of value — a trend some asset allocators perceive as supportive for digital assets.

Kalshi itself has expanded rapidly. In October 2025, the company announced growth into over 140 countries following a $300 million funding round that values it at $5 billion. This capital boost is intended to improve infrastructure, broaden partnerships, and scale its product stack beyond simple yes/no event contracts. The valuation surge underscores confidence in prediction markets as a means of tapping collective foresight.

Kalshi is currently viewed as a leader in the prediction-market space, outpacing rivals like Polymarket. As of mid-October, Kalshi’s valuation exceeds that of Polymarket by a wide margin, though the latter retains star appeal in crypto circles.

The International Monetary Fund has lifted its projection for the United Arab Emirates’ economic expansion to 4.8 per cent in 2025 and sees 5.0 per cent growth in 2026, citing accelerating non-hydrocarbon activity and a rebound in oil output.

Stronger-than-expected performance in tourism, construction, trade and financial services is underpinning the upward revision. The IMF attributes resilience to the country’s diversified strategy and structural reforms such as enhanced trade agreements and sustained investment in infrastructure.

Analysts say the revision contrasts sharply with broader regional downgrades. The IMF now expects growth across the Middle East and North Africa to expand by only 2.6 per cent in 2025, constrained by policy uncertainty, volatile energy markets and geopolitical tensions.

Within the UAE, central bank data reinforce the narrative of dual expansion. The non-hydrocarbon sector is forecast to grow by around 4.5 per cent annually in both 2025 and 2026, while the hydrocarbon segment is expected to rebound more sharply—by 5.8 per cent in 2025 and 6.5 per cent in 2026—on increased output as OPEC+ quotas are relaxed.

When IMF staff visited the UAE in January 2025, they noted that domestic demand remained robust amid modest oil production, forecasting real GDP growth at about 4 per cent for the year. They projected that fiscal and external surpluses would remain comfortable, helped by elevated non-oil revenues and cautious fiscal management.

Still, risks linger. The UAE’s banking sector, while well capitalised, faces exposure to real estate, and high house prices pose concerns for asset quality. In mid-2025, exposure to property in banks’ portfolios stood at around 18 to 19 per cent of risk-weighted assets. A sudden shift in investor sentiment or capital flows could test the stability of credit markets.

On the external front, the current account surplus is projected at about 7.5 per cent of GDP, supported by stronger non-oil exports and moderating import growth. Liquidity buffers remain healthy, with international reserves covering more than eight months of imports.

European Commission officials are poised to grant approval to Abu Dhabi’s state oil company for its €14.7 billion acquisition of Germany’s Covestro, conditional on minor adjustments to compliance measures, according to sources familiar with the process. The decision could mark one of the most significant Gulf-to-EU corporate takeovers to date.

Brussels opened a detailed investigation into the deal earlier this year under its Foreign Subsidies Regulation, citing concerns that the United Arab Emirates might have leveraged state-backed advantages—such as an unlimited state guarantee and pledged capital injections—to win the bid. The Commission’s probe, initially suspended in September pending additional information, has now resumed as ADNOC submits remedial proposals.

In its revised remedy package, ADNOC has committed to removing language referencing the unlimited guarantee from Covestro’s articles of association and to preserving Covestro’s intellectual property within Europe. Sources suggest the Commission may insist on further tweaks before final clearance, but no major restructuring is expected.

ADNOC’s international investment arm, XRG, has framed the concessions as reflective of its long-term investor stance and asserted confidence that the proposals are “robust and proportionate.” The supreme size of the deal amplifies scrutiny—a deal described by analysts as ADNOC’s largest ever and among the biggest foreign acquisitions of a European company by a Gulf state.

Opponents and industry peers have raised flags about the competitive effects of the transaction. Critics argue that ADNOC’s state backing might have deterred rival bidders, distorting the playing field in Europe’s chemicals sector. Regulators collected feedback from market participants as part of the remedy review, a standard stage in EU merger oversight.

In September, the EU paused its review, citing gaps in the information submitted by the parties. ADNOC responded by accusing the Commission of issuing “disproportionate and invasive” demands. It warned such tactics jeopardised the deal’s viability. Brussels has indicated it will reset its decision deadline after receiving all necessary material. Its previous deadline had been 2 December.

Analysts suggest that the minimal expected adjustments reflect the Commission’s confidence that the core concerns have been addressed. Some believe that failure to clear the deal now would signal strained investment relations between EU institutions and sovereign-backed acquirers. Others caution that even small remedial changes—especially on governance rights or intellectual property handling—could materially alter deal returns.

Covestro, a leader in polymer materials, chemicals, coatings and adhesives, stands to bolster its growth potential under ADNOC’s ownership. The acquisition aligns with ADNOC’s drive to diversify beyond hydrocarbons toward higher-value downstream chemical operations. Yet the deal also pits strategic ambition against regulatory sensitivity—a balancing act now unfolding in the corridors of Brussels.