BTCUSDT
Bitcoin / Tether USD
crypto Composite

Short covering can add fuel: when price rises, traders buying back BTC to close short positions become extra buyers. But that alone can’t identify the catalyst here; the jobs report and payday explanations in the comments are speculation.

The non-conspiracy version: the IMF approved a \~$1.4B loan to El Salvador (an Extended Fund Facility), and lenders attach conditions. The IMF's stated concerns are pretty mundane — El Salvador is dollarized and can't print its own currency, so adding a volatile asset to the sovereign balance sheet raises questions about debt sustainability and the government's ability to repay.
The conditions (no forced acceptance, no tax payments in BTC, winding down the Chivo wallet, limits on public-sector BTC exposure) are all about keeping that risk contained and the loan repayable. Whether you agree with them or not, that's the stated logic — creditor protecting itself, not shadowy mind control.

Mejor ETF DE BTC CALL OPTIONS 1,5x
XBCI11 En Estados Unidos (NASDAQ): Utilizas el ticker XBCI. Se opera directamente en dólares americanos (USD) rentabilidad mensual suba o baje

Since OP only posted a link:
**Importance:** ⭐⭐⭐☆☆ — meaningful cross-chain infrastructure failure, but relatively contained financially and **not a compromise of the NEAR blockchain itself**.
* **What happened:** NEAR Intents, NEAR's cross-chain swapping system, lost approximately **$3.8 million** after an attacker exploited a bug involving its **Omni deposit/withdrawal infrastructure and an Intents smart contract**. The team halted services, patched the contract-side vulnerability and promised full reimbursement. [The Block](https://www.theblock.co/news/ecosystems/2026-10-01-near-intents-halts-services-after-3-8-million-exploit-promises-full-compensation-417404?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* **How it worked:** The affected infrastructure holds assets deposited from other blockchains so NEAR Intents can execute cross-chain swaps. On-chain analysis indicates the attacker extracted roughly **$3.87M USDT from a BNB Chain vault in five withdrawals** over about six hours. This points to the cross-chain custody/authorization layer rather than NEAR's consensus or base blockchain. [Bitquery](https://bitquery.io/investigations/near-intents-hack?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* **Where the money went:** Investigators traced nearly all of it. Bitquery found roughly **76% converted into 34.69 BTC**, while about $802,000 reached KuCoin addresses. Remarkably, the attacker apparently routed about **$822,000 of the stolen assets back through NEAR Intents itself** while draining the system. [Bitquery](https://bitquery.io/investigations/near-intents-hack?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* **Containment:** Deposits and withdrawals across **11 connected networks** were temporarily suspended while fixes were deployed. Core service has since begun resuming, and NEAR Intents says users will be made whole. [The Block](https://www.theblock.co/news/ecosystems/2026-10-01-near-intents-halts-services-after-3-8-million-exploit-promises-full-compensation-417404?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* **Market reaction:** NEAR dropped roughly **7–9%** following disclosure. The timing is particularly awkward because the exploit occurred only two days after the launch of the first U.S. spot NEAR ETF, which highlighted NEAR Intents as an important part of the ecosystem. [BeInCrypto](https://beincrypto.com/near-intents-hacked-3-8-million/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
# Bottom line
This looks much more like a **bridge/infrastructure exploit than a NEAR Protocol failure**. There is currently no evidence that NEAR's blockchain, consensus mechanism or native token itself was compromised.
The forthcoming technical postmortem matters most: investigators know **where the money went**, but NEAR Intents has not yet fully explained **why apparently unauthorized withdrawal requests were accepted**. That distinction will determine whether this was a narrow implementation bug or evidence of a more fundamental weakness in its cross-chain architecture.

The Blockchain is pseudonymus so we will never know exactly but the River Adoption report tries to get an approximation: https://river.com/learn/files/river-bitcoin-adoption-report-2026.pdf
So about 14 million BTC owned by individuals/private wallets and part of the ETFs.

If your sole advantage is lending nations money so they owe you favors while you direct their policies and resources, and BTC emerges to strip that control, what would you do as the IMF?

Can’t even get to BTC without understanding what we are trying to beat

I built a validation pipeline that runs strategies through 7 stages on real Binance data:
Stage1: code safety scan, in-sample, out-of-sample, walk-forward, randomized starts, slippage stress and Stage 7: final holdout slice nothing else touches.
6 months of 5-minute candles per run on BTC/ETH/SOL domains. Then I made a generator with several ideas and let it auto create and run the gauntlet on them (In retrospect might have been inefficient. I should have fed previously passed strategies back in to guide generation but I was a bit paranoid about correlation risks and spawning 416 clones).
It took me a few days to run and the repo is almost everything that came out: 406 rejects plus 10 survivors, each with a report card showing in-sample and OOS returns, Sharpe, drawdown, trade count, the exact stage it died on and why.
**The stuff that surprised me:**
* The single best-looking backtest in the batch `pctb_fade_sol_v3`, **+2014bps in-sample !!! :O** went **-112bps** the moment it saw unseen data.
* Literal astrology meme bots I created got high returns in backtests but obviously failed in validation. Backtests have a big element of luck! Unreliable!!
* Out of all the strategies, **exactly one** showed an in-sample Sharpe above 1.5. It failed validation anyway. If you're searching for the perfect backtest in this dataset it basically doesn't exist.
* **25 strategies were profitable out-of-sample and STILL got rejected.** They couldn't survive walk-forward and injected slippage. Green OOS numbers by itself is just most probably luck until proven otherwise, but they definitely might be a good place to fork and improve on in the future!
* Weirdest result: some of the 10 survivors have **negative** OOS returns. They passed because they held up under perturbation and randomized starts.
* The family that dominated was kinda bizzare: `asia_drift_btc` BTC drifts during Asian session hours, **7/9 of these variants passed!** Meanwhile the families everyone actually trades went **0/9 across the board**: Donchian breakouts, Bollinger squeezes, RSI reversion, orderbook imbalance. Every single variant, dead. Context beat TA, so is TA dead??? Lol, my generator was probably bad at writing them, someone smart could actually build a good template for TA strategies.
* Every BTC scalping variant failed: **0/18**. At \~7bps a side in fees, the edge you need on 5-minute bars is brutal. Anything thinner cannot survive. It might have been my 5 minute time windows of evaluation though.
The code is plain Python on a simple predict-style contract, so they can drop into most backtesters. Most of the rejects failed on robustness rather than logic, so they're actually decent starting points if you want to improve them. Happy to answer questions on the methodology.
If anyone improves the strategies and gets different results I'd love to see it!

Yes, it does have a robust backtest on 3 coins to see if there is an edge and not just a overfit/fluke on BTC.

Quantum computers threaten the layers of BTC in different ways. Old key pairs are fucked, sha-256d is likely fine. Quantum computers can't derive an input of infinite variability/length from an output of finite variability/length, so hashing has great logical resistance to any computation, classical or QC.
Disagree that a competitor is likely to supplant BTC any time in the next 100 years. There's a deep social layer underpinning the actually cryptographic schema. 21 million, block every 10 min, difficulty retargeting every 2018 blocks.
The mechanics of the network (sha-256d, ECDSA) don't need to persist for the chain of custody to remain intact.Even the hashing algo can be swapped out if it is ever credibly threatened (though that changeover is hard to imagine). Old signature schemas being vulnerable doesn't surprise, the most imminent QC threats can be mititgated by p2pkh and just simple pubkey hygiene.
BTC is the most powerful and secure computer network on earth, as it stands. If it ever is dethroned, it will be long after we're gone.

Why is the IMF obsessed with El Salvador not adopting Bitcoin? They previously forbade them from making it legal tender, accepting tax payments in BTC and from using their government-sponsored BTC wallet, amongst other things.

Common sense will tell you that if BTC is only at 85K and MSTR already up 100% since $80, that this will easily hit $400 again.

I've been in the space for a brief minute (bought ETH when it first hit $40) and I tend to agree.

BTC was first mined in January 2009. If the technology hasn't been put to practical, everyday use in 18 years then when will it be? To me, cryptocurrency is a solution searching for a problem.
Yes, a foreign bank might be running a testnet, or an investment bank might be running an obscure side project. But there hasn't been any mainstream takeover by crypto in any meaningful way that I'm aware of.

In Canada, and Europe the banks already reconcile almost instantly. All of the banks in Canada have been using a system called Interac for decades. If you want to send or receive money you open your banking app and send/request an e-transfer to the person's mobile # or email address. The money is deposited nearly instantaneously. I wouldn't be surprised if the banks in Asian countries and elsewhere have something similar. That is to say that we don't need 3rd party apps like Venmo, or cryptocurrency to accomplish what's already working
I've been rugged too many times *following the narrative^TM* and got out of spot trading crypto six years ago. I only trade leveraged futures now, and only in crypto because the volatility is fantastic.

I will concede BTC as digital gold and give it the credit that it deserves. Maybe a few others, such as Zcash, etc. I have been accumulating BTC not to trade but for its stored value. I do love the space, but have gotten away from following any projects because any hype seems to just be a circlejerk for others in the crypto space.

NON FARM data will let us know the next move of BTC

The reason BTC hasn't seen adoption is because its a deliberately crippled piece of trash as fas as p2p cash is concerned.

I’m literally replenishing my bag .. I got up to 974 and then had to sell 5 times in the last 6 months to cover living expenses.. I think I can add back 80 to 100 to my 440 I’m currently holding.. the goal is to get to 800 by year end … I simply do not see a better crypto than LTC.. no one uses XRP, ZEC or XMR or DOGE Those have no adopted utility.. BTC, LTC and ETH are the most common non stable coins .. I was disappointed we did not retest the 400 ATH in 2025 (like us all) .. 2029 should be the Bull year but I think the cycle is now different so optimistically I’m smoking the hopium pipe and hoping we get to 200 by July. After the dumb parabolic move Ztash did.

You download the recovery program, then isolate that computer from the internet. Do not reconnect that computer until you have created a new wallet and moved your BTC.

>It's interesting that companies linked to BTC are now coming forward to talk about inflation and BTC as a safe haven against it. But they didn't start saying this until September 2026 and not during the entire downturn - u/Infinite1ntelligence
Had to quote this because it's so shockingly uninformed that I suspect you'll delete it when called out.
Famously Brian Armstrong of Coinbase was talking about inflation back in 2020.
DAMG (Greyscale) Barry Silbert and others were publicly talking about inflation back in 2020.
Famously Jack Dorsey spoke with Elon Musk in a Twitters Spaces discussion and specifically linked bitcoin to inlfation in 2021.
Cathie Wood explained her initial bitcoin investment was in part due to the inflation hedge angle. She spoke about that publicly in 2022 and her initial purchase was back in 2015.
And of course Michael Saylor in 2020, and the list goes on.
Most of this happened after Paul Tudor Jones went on CNBC to talk about bitcoin and inflation on [May 11, 2020](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9VpVf3g9Y0).
Prior to that there weren't many companies speaking about inflation, but it has always been one of the most introductory points that prominent individuals make about why someone should take the time to understand bitcoin.

What a rock star move to make at 24. The only move “marginally” better is maybe a few call options expiration 2029. It’ll let you stretch and leverage that Mstr that leverage on BTC. Stack!

The BTC Power Law Curve from Beginning to 10/1/2026