News related to
risk

Bitcoin’s price dropped below $105,000 early Friday in London trading, recovering marginally later but signalling mounting pressure in crypto markets. Bloomberg data showed a fall of as much as 3 percent before a modest bounce. The slide comes after a week of heightened volatility that has dragged digital-asset valuations lower.

The crypto sector has shed billions. Total market capitalisation fell to its lowest point since July, as institutional and leveraged positions faced heavy liquidations. Ethereum, the second-largest token, also fell sharply, trading under $3,800.

One key driver has been intensifying stress in U. S. regional banks. Shares of Zions Bancorp plunged after it disclosed a $50 million loan impairment, while Western Alliance is embroiled in fraud allegations tied to borrowers. Those troubles have sparked a “flight to safety” across risk assets, nudging investors away from speculative trades.

The collapse in derivatives markets was steep: over $1 billion in long and short positions were wiped out in rolling liquidations, especially on exchanges with aggressive leverage mechanics. The drop below the 200-day moving average—around $107,500—has undermined a long-term support zone, fuelling further anxiety among traders.

At the same time, trading volume surged. Weekly volume for Bitcoin hit its highest level since March, suggesting heavy participation even amid panic. Some analysts see that as a sign of re-accumulation by institutional players, though it remains unclear whether those inflows will stabilise prices.

Technical watchers are eyeing potential floor zones near $100,000, while others suggest $88,000 could act as an “open target” if selling accelerates. Meanwhile, on-chain data reveals that wallets holding between 100 and 1,000 BTC—sometimes called “shark wallets”—are accumulating aggressively, marking the fastest rate of inflow since 2013. Those trends echo previous panic phases, which often preceded longer rallies.

Some observers caution that Bitcoin’s repeated failure to behave as a “safe harbour” during market stress undermines one of its selling points. Still, others argue that the fundamentals remain intact—citing diminishing supply on exchanges, renewed institutional interest, and the durability of blockchain infrastructure.

Volatility is unlikely to subside soon. The week ahead includes major U. S. economic data releases and potential policy statements from central banks that could sway risk sentiment. In parallel, geopolitical frictions—particularly over trade and supply chains—may further rattle markets already in flux.

Over $250 million has been wiped out from leveraged positions across major cryptocurrency markets within the last 60 minutes, according to real-time tracker alerts. The bulk of the liquidations hit long bets, triggering a sharp lash of volatility that rattled traders across exchanges.

Data from multiple crypto-analytics feeds show that Bitcoin and Ethereum bore the brunt of the forced closures, with long positions cascading under mounting downward pressure. The alerts indicate that around $200 million of that total was liquidated in just the preceding 15 minutes. Margin calls and automatic stop-loss triggers have sharply pared back open interest.

Market participants point to a combination of lower-than-expected macro signals and heightened global risk aversion as catalysts for the sudden liquidation wave. Macro equity markets have seen risk assets fall under pressure over the past sessions, prompting a spillover into speculative crypto positions. The added strain from derivatives exposure amplified the move.

Crypto exchange data show that Binance, Bybit and OKX recorded the highest volumes of liquidations, especially in their perpetual futures markets. On Binance alone, over $80 million in long positions may have been forcibly closed, according to traders cross-checking the on-chain and order-book flows. Ethereum perpetuals also registered substantial losses, particularly in mid- and high-leverage tiers.

Analysts observing funding rates and open interest across exchanges have flagged an abrupt deleveraging. The funding rates for many altcoins flipped negative, signalling that the short side was gaining dominance as leverage unwound. Open interest across high-risk tokens dropped by 15 – 20 % in many cases, suppressing liquidity and heightening slippage.

Several algorithmic trading desks and quant funds experienced knock-on effects. As large liquidations pulled prices lower, stop orders cascaded, exacerbating the decline in thin markets. Some trading firms reported losses due to slippage and forced exits—even though positions were hedged—with automated strategies failing to escape the downdraft in time.

A few larger holders, often designated as ‘whales’, appear to have opportunistically repositioned. Some have placed bids closer to now-discounted levels in anticipation of a bounce; others reduced exposure altogether. On-chain indicators suggest increased inflows to stablecoin pools and accumulation in non-spot holdings, hinting at a cautious redeployment rather than wholesale exit.

Institutional interest remains muted amid the turmoil. According to contacts in digital-asset fund management, most institutions were already operating with limited leverage and hedges in place. Few entered new positions during the seizure of volatility, and many paused trades to watch whether support levels would hold.

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.

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.

BlackRock chief executive Larry Fink asserted that cryptocurrencies carry a role akin to gold in investment portfolios, calling Bitcoin “a decent tool for diversification” while warning that it should not form a major slice of one’s holdings.

Speaking on 60 Minutes on CBS, Fink said: “There is a role for crypto in the same way there is a role for gold … For those looking to diversify, it is not a bad asset, but I don’t believe that it should be a large component of your portfolio.”

Fink’s remarks mark a notable shift from earlier positions. In the past, he dismissed Bitcoin as a facilitator of money laundering, stating that none of his clients expressed interest in crypto. The evolution of his thought underscores how digital assets have moved further into mainstream investment discourse.

His comments come amid rising institutional engagement with digital asset markets, with BlackRock among firms championing the development of spot Bitcoin ETFs. The firm has also begun pushing into tokenization, envisioning the conversion of traditional financial products such as equities, bonds or real estate into digital token formats. Fink described tokenization of all assets as “the next wave of opportunity” over the coming decades.

Analysts view Fink’s balanced tone—acknowledging both potential and restraint—as calibrated for the climate of heightened volatility and regulatory uncertainty in crypto markets. He is signalling openness without forfeiting caution.

Some investors welcomed the endorsement as validation from one of finance’s most influential figures, though sceptics note that Fink’s insistence on limiting crypto to a small portfolio slice reflects enduring reservations.

Crypto proponents point out that Bitcoin’s often low correlation with equities or bonds—and its non-sovereign character—make it attractive as a diversification instrument. BlackRock itself in earlier internal research has characterised Bitcoin as a “unique diversifier,” citing its tendency to behave differently from traditional assets during episodes of macro stress.

Yet the environment remains fraught. Price swings, regulatory fragmentation across jurisdictions, and infrastructure challenges continue to deter widespread adoption. For instance, debates persist around how to regulate digital assets, custody risks, taxation, and classification.

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.

Tether has agreed to pay $299.5 million to the Celsius Network bankruptcy estate, resolving long-standing disputes over Bitcoin collateral transfers tied to Celsius’s collapse in 2022. The deal was announced by the Blockchain Recovery Investment Consortium, a joint venture between GXD Labs and VanEck, acting as litigation administrator and asset recovery manager for Celsius’s creditors.

The settlement brings closure to adversary claims filed in August 2024 in the U. S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Celsius had contended that Tether improperly liquidated Bitcoin collateral backing loans denominated in USDT, executing sales when Bitcoin’s market value closely matched Celsius’s debt — thereby undermining the lender’s position. Under the agreement, those claims will be dismissed, though the broader wind-down of Celsius remains ongoing.

BRIC was appointed by Celsius’s debtors and the unsecured creditors committee in January 2024 to steer recovery efforts of illiquid assets and litigation claims. According to BRIC’s announcement, the payment reflects a negotiated resolution consistent with maximizing returns for creditors. David Proman of GXD Labs remarked on the “timeliness” of the settlement and the objective of concluding contentious matters against Tether.

While $299.5 million is a substantial sum, it accounts for a relatively small fraction of the total claims Celsius had pursued—estimated at approximately $4 billion. Tether’s side had resisted full liability, positioning its role as merely transactional rather than one bearing responsibility for downstream collateral use, a stance it has maintained in past legal challenges. Some observers interpret the settlement as signalling heightened legal risks for stablecoin issuers in future insolvency contexts, where courts may scrutinize the proximity of collateral actions to debtor collapse.

The settlement does not necessarily foreclose other claims linked to the Celsius wind-down. BRIC remains responsible for managing a portfolio of residual litigation and illiquid digital assets, with the aim of continuing creditor recovery. The deal, in effect, removes one major legal obstacle in a broader restructuring process that has spanned years.

Market reaction has been muted. Crypto stakeholders and legal analysts are now closely watching whether regulators or courts will treat this settlement as a template—potentially influencing how stablecoin issuers are held to account in distressed scenarios. Some argue that issuers will face increased pressure to adopt stronger governance and compliance frameworks to mitigate similar exposures. Others caution against overinterpreting the settlement as an admission of liability.