ETHEUR
Ethereum / Euro
cryptoComposite

https://preview.redd.it/bq87hb37qpyh1.png?width=903&format=png&auto=webp&s=50924664363d9f5a727d77777f106fb849c6e943 NEAR is up 8.45%, UNI 6.67%, and ENA 6.31%. This morning’s rebound looks lively. Whether fresh buying can sustain it is another question. Reported October 30 flows across U.S. spot BTC and ETH ETFs show combined net outflows of $469.1 million. BlackRock’s figures remain incomplete, so the final total could change. BTC is around $77,300 and ETH near $2,244, recovering from the sharp selloff. Buyers have stepped in, while the reported ETF flows have yet to follow. There’s an update on Binance too. Reuters now reports roughly $6.3 billion stolen. Binance says it has earmarked company funds to cover losses, with withdrawals still awaiting restoration. The next tests are actual withdrawals and reserve disclosures—reimbursement promises need execution. The backdrop remains difficult. The Nasdaq lost about 2.9% overnight as investors questioned when AI spending would deliver profits. Gold, XAU, fell toward $3,875, while Brent rose to $117.63. Middle East supply risks are raising energy costs and keeping inflation concerns alive. Lower Treasury yields failed to support stocks or gold. This weekend, watch whether buyers support BTC on pullbacks and whether NEAR and UNI hold their gains. If BTC stalls and smaller coins surrender their rallies, chasing could mean buying into profit-taking. I’d wait for a pullback before considering an entry. Which bothers you more: missing this green candle or buying it and getting trapped?

The "never-seen-before laundering patterns" line is the part I'd watch 🔍 Once stolen funds get split across many wallets and hopped between chains, tracing gets harder, though on-chain analysts can often still follow the flows. For regular traders the practical angle is that stablecoins like USDT can be frozen by the issuer when flagged, while BTC and ETH can't, so how the proceeds get moved will shape how much is ever recovered. It also shows why custody and withdrawal controls matter as much as the trading venue itself.

If I just stole billions in BTC and ETH at this point in the cycle I would just hold it lol.

ETH Daily - 30th October 2026 📰 \-Ambire Ice hardware wallet. \-ethlambda glaos-ready v1.0.0. \-Railgun live on Base. \-Balancer enters withdraw mode. \-Encrypted Films THE DEVELOPER trailer. \-Aave unfreezes V3 and V4 markets \-Binance shares hack update 2. \-ZisK releases v1.4.0-alpha. Happy Halloween 🎃 Read more: [https://ethdaily.io/ambire-introduces-ice-hardware-wallet](https://ethdaily.io/ambire-introduces-ice-hardware-wallet)

I’ve been studying ETH’s historical price action over the past six years, and one level keeps catching my attention: **$2,100–$2,200.** Looking back at previous corrections, I’ve noticed ETH repeatedly selling off after pushing into the mid-$2,500s and higher, only to find buyers around this same region. A few examples from my charts: **January 2024:** ETH wicked toward $2,165–$2,170 before recovering. **September 2024:** Another sharp selloff into the low-$2,100s, followed by a recovery above $2,200. **June 2025:** ETH tested approximately $2,116 before recovering toward $2,230. These weren’t identical setups, and not every bounce resulted in an immediate sustained rally. But the repeated reactions suggest this region has historically attracted meaningful buying interest. **Fast-forward to October 2026.** ETH has corrected sharply from the $2,700–$2,800 region, recently testing approximately $2,170–$2,200 before bouncing. We’re once again sitting just above a historically important demand zone. **Here’s where my Wyckoff accumulation thesis comes in.** Three months ago, I identified the move toward $1,500 as a potential Wyckoff spring. ETH subsequently rallied above $2,700, which I interpreted as a possible Sign of Strength (SOS). My current hypothesis is that this correction could be a deeper back-up or Last Point of Support (LPS) within that larger accumulation structure. If that’s correct, the recent move into $2,100–$2,200 could represent another shakeout before the next markup attempt. **What I’m watching:** **$2,100–$2,200:** Historical demand zone that needs to hold. **$2,300:** First important reclaim. **$2,400:** A sustained move above this level would strengthen the bullish reversal. **$2,500–$2,600:** Major resistance and stronger confirmation of renewed momentum. **$2,700–$2,800:** Previous resistance zone. **$3,000:** My next major upside target if the structure confirms. **The bearish case matters too.** If ETH decisively loses $2,100 and fails to reclaim it, the accumulation thesis becomes significantly weaker. In that scenario, I’d be watching $2,000 and potentially $1,900 rather than assuming another automatic bounce. A support zone is not a guaranteed floor, and historical price reactions alone don’t establish accumulation. **My current read:** I think ETH has a legitimate opportunity to establish a higher low around $2,100–$2,200 and begin another move toward $3,000. But I want to see $2,300 reclaimed first, followed by $2,400 holding as support. That would be far more convincing than simply bouncing off an oversold reading. The next several daily candles should tell us a lot. **Curious what everyone else thinks: Is $2,100–$2,200 a genuine multiyear demand zone, or are we just seeing temporary relief rallies within a larger downtrend?** I kept the tone analytical and confident without claiming that the Wyckoff LPS or a move to $3,000 is already confirmed. Current market analysis also identifies the $2,150–$2,200 area as an important support test. Q +

Do a master’s at one of the following institutions: Princeton, MIT, CMU, Princeton, Cambridge, Oxford, ICL, EPFL, ETH Zürich. Ideally, apply to them all. If you are a solid quant candidate, you will get into at least one. For program, any of math/applied math/cs/stats/ml/finance is fine. Don’t worry about any other school for MSc if the goal is quant. ROI is not there. If you wish to stay in school longer, either continue at your institution for a master or go straight to a PhDs at an american state schools or better. PhDs are hard and a fine filter even if the name is not as prestigious. If you are not passionate about furthering your education, don’t. Try to get some tangentially related technical role i.e. software engineer, financial data analyst, etc and pivot. But you are likely to find that job sufficient to make ends meet and as you get older you will likely care more about security/stability than being the most accomplished of your friends. You are in a great place if you are getting OAs. Don’t be too hard on yourself. there are lots of great opportunities out there for smart people. If you are simply interested in markets, there is plenty if interesting work in energy/commodities/crypto/prediction markets etc rn. Best of luck!

In the last 10 years crypto has been around: \-Blockchain security has slightly improved on major chains like BTC and ETH. \-Major exchanges have improved their security requiring more layers of verification and more indepth internal security. \-Hardware wallets have improved their hardware and software. BUT \-Hardware wallets have also added features that create more vulnerabilities. \-Exchanges still have a lot of the same weak points. \-Hacking is vastly more powerful plus has the help of AI, so the improved exchange security could still fall behind. \-Quantum might still be a threat for blockchain, but not for at least a decade or two.

Yeah, data, please. The one that can be plugged into mathematical models, preferably. Merit only, not your feelings. Good luck with trading shitcoins in size when SOXL perps are the 3rd biggest perps product on any exchange after BTC and ETH.

Which path would be easier to break into quant, ETH zürich cs phd or U Michigan cs phd topic is about ml/optimization

Personally, I believe it ultimately comes down to conviction. I strongly believe that technology and growth stocks have greater growth potential than traditional “old economy” stocks, and I expect this trend to become even more pronounced in the future. Regardless of high valuations, I think the market will continue to go through corrections and eventually regain momentum and move higher again. Of course, the Nasdaq isn't a perfect index by design, but at the moment I don't see any serious alternative with comparable trading volume. Specialized technology sector ETFs exclude too many tech companies due to their sector classification criteria. For example, my portfolio consists of 50% Nasdaq 100, 25% SMH, and 25% BTC/ETH. I'm certainly in for a wild ride, but conviction is what makes the difference.

>**More than you can buy,** >**Devcon next week to get by,** >**Ultrasound Mumbai.** ~Daily haiku until we’re at least at 0.178 on the ETH/BTC ratio or highest market cap

Yeah kinda crazy one dev had access to all that. Although they said on X that they discovered more attack angles, they haven’t shared which ones tho. I don’t they eip 7702 allowed them to move Bitcoin for example. It’s an ETH wallet thing

If I rebalance into ETH, changenow is one option I’d compare, but I’d still check rates, custody risk, and tax impact first.

l. In return, the automated system gladly lent them $45 million worth of a different asset (Wrapped ETH)—a type of digital cash that has no central master freeze butt

Loss likely passed on to defi ETH lenders where these were still used as collateral

The so-called DeFi loan contracts aren't yet regulated. Stablecoins are regulated, but stablecoin regulation doesn't extend to buying a DeFi contract to borrow ETH

The real flaw is with protocols like Aave where their smart contracts treat freezable assets (USDT) the same as native, unfreezable assets (ETH) without accounting for censorship risk. Imagine taking out a cash loan against a luxury car. In the real world, no bank hands you $50,000 in cash while you hand them a car title that's currently being reported stolen, or a title to a car that the manufacturer can remotely disable and repossess at any second. Real world lenders verify clear title, encumbrances, and ownership transfer before releasing a single dollar. Aave’s smart contracts effectively accepted the car title instantly, paid out non-refundable cash, and left the lender holding a car that got bricked remotely ten minutes later. While I understand how this is how they have always operated it's dumb af. Like even if this hack didn't happen this kind of operation of smart contracts just doesn't make sense.

The real flaw with protocols like Aave is that their smart contracts treat freezable assets (USDT) the same as native, unfreezable assets (ETH) without accounting for censorship risk. Imagine taking out a cash loan against a luxury car. In the real world, no bank hands you $50,000 in cash while you hand them a car title that's currently being reported stolen, or a title to a car that the manufacturer can remotely disable and repossess at any second. ​Real world lenders verify clear title, encumbrances, and ownership transfer before releasing a single dollar. Aave’s smart contracts effectively accepted the car title instantly, paid out non-refundable cash, and left the lender holding a car that got bricked remotely ten minutes later. Retarded.

The point of Bitcoin is that a diverse network of nodes presents a whack-a-mole problem to anybody trying to censor payments, or shut it down Tether isn't a diverse network of nodes Neither are Ripple and the other centralised "instant" cryptocurrencies Only BTC is genuinely decentralised. ETH, TRON and the other "smart contract" blockchains are too bloated with contracts to recruit node operators. Other BTC-derived blockchains are too small to recruit node operators Monero? Maybe Tether is nothing more than a token enabled by a contract on a variety of smart chains. The contract is centralised. All smart contract tokens are centralised

**In 20 minutes on October 29, hackers drained $6.36 billion from Binance across 10 blockchains—more than four times the 2025 Bybit hack and six times larger than Saddam Hussein's $1B Central Bank of Iraq heist.** And they did it without leaking a single private key. What happened over the next 60 minutes was the ultimate live stress test of the entire digital asset ecosystem: * **The Signing Hijack:** Attackers compromised a DevOps laptop and signing pipeline, pre-signing 50 EIP-7702 authorizations to turn an Ethereum hot wallet into an automated sweeper. * **The $3B Kill-Switch:** Tether, Circle, Ripple, and Arbitrum stepped in and froze roughly $2.7B to $3B in stolen stablecoins and tokens with a few keystrokes. * **The Sovereign Escape:** Meanwhile, 18,270 BTC and over 420,000 ETH ($2.4B in bearer assets) vanished into a 19-address peel chain beyond any issuer's reach. * **The SAFU Reality:** A $1B emergency reserve cannot erase the structural risk of keeping bearer money wired to an internet-connected API. If an issuer can press a button to freeze a North Korean hacker's stablecoins at 8:45 PM, that same button can be pressed on anyone tomorrow morning. **Read the complete forensic and philosophical autopsy of the $6.4B Binance heist 👇**

All the ETH here in Canada is frozen. You just need to warm it up before you trade it outside of Canada to a warmer place.

Dein Beitrag wurde aufgrund folgender Regel entfernt: >8. Kryptodiskussionen sind begrenzt. Es dürfen nur die folgenden Kryptowährungen diskutiert werden: BTC, ETH, LTC, BCH Allgemeine Diskussionen z.B. zur Besteuerung sind erlaubt. Als Alternative steht r/Kryptostrassenwetten zur Verfügung. Bitte halte dich in Zukunft an diese Regel.

Nearly 3 Billion in BTC and ETH

That much BTC and ETH getting dumped on the market could do some damage. Probably not serious damage by itself, but additional fall out could occur from others selling out of fear, longs being liquidated, etc.

If a major bank were completely drained, the transactions would most certainly be reversed. At the very least the legal system could be used to seek recovery. With ETH, you don’t even know the identity of the staker who signed off on the transactions. The real problem here is that the etherium network validators dropped the ball. Clearly these were fraudulent transactions that should have failed even the most basic validation checks. The key signature check alone is too basic. It’s so inadequate that banks aren’t even legally allowed to be so simplistic.