BTCPay Urges Bitcoin Merchants to Replace Wallets After Theft Estimated at $1.6 Million. The payment software provider warns that installing security updates may not remove attacker access, as Bitcoin and Litecoin thefts continue. BTCPay Server has called on retailers to rebuild outdated payment servers and replace wallets after hackers stole Bitcoin and Litecoin. In a security notice on November 2, the open-source Bitcoin payment software provider warned that installing the latest update may not protect funds if attackers had already compromised the server. This warning followed a series of attacks targeting systems running version 2.4.1 or lower, exploiting a different method to leverage a vulnerability BTCPay patched on August 7. Blockchain analytics firm Bitquery traced approximately $1.63 million in stolen funds linked to 18.38 BTC and 3,405 LTC across 682 wallet scans from October 30 to November 2. The investigation revealed that 87% of the stolen funds were transferred within an eight-hour window on November 1, with a peak hour accounting for roughly $725,000 in transfers. These findings offer an initial indication of the financial scale of the attack, though BTCPay has not confirmed the total loss or identified how many merchants were affected. BTCPay expressed regret for not doing more to reach merchants still using outdated installations after the August security notice. Since then, the project has released several additional security updates, including version 2.4.7 on October 29. The investigation revealed that 87% of the stolen funds were transferred within an eight-hour window on November 1, with a peak hour accounting for roughly $725,000 in transfers. These findings offer an initial indication of the financial scale of the attack, though BTCPay has not confirmed the total loss or identified how many merchants were affected. BTCPay expressed regret for not doing more to reach merchants still using outdated installations after the August security notice. Since then, the project has released several additional security updates, including version 2.4.7 on October 29. Wallet thefts persist despite BTCPay’s security warning. Suspected thefts continue even after BTCPay publicly warned operators to shut down their servers. According to Bitquery, an additional 267 withdrawals from wallets totaling approximately $150,000 occurred after BTCPay’s warning at 22:25 UTC on November 1. Fund transfers continued throughout the night and were still being recorded when the analytics firm ceased monitoring at 06:00 UTC on November 2. BTCPay said it contacted hosting providers, including LunaNode, to temporarily suspend affected systems as a precautionary measure. The project received its first theft report via email at 20:56 UTC, though their investigation noted wallet withdrawals as early as that afternoon. The company stated it observed no impact from these attacks on servers running version 2.4.2 or higher when the November warning was issued. They also confirmed that wallets with spending keys stored off-server—including hardware wallets—were unaffected by the reported thefts. However, BTCPay is urging former users of vulnerable versions to migrate to entirely new server setups, even if they have updated their software or detected no missing funds. The concern is that prior attackers with administrative access may have obtained login credentials or wallet secrets that remain usable even after the security vulnerability was patched. Therefore, the project recommends creating a new wallet with a fresh seed phrase on a trusted device and transferring any remaining funds from the old hot wallet to this new one. Operators must also deactivate existing servers, preserve relevant transaction records and logs, and install the latest supported software on a new virtual machine without restoring the old system. Server passwords, SSH credentials, application access keys, API keys, and Lightning credentials may have been compromised and should be replaced using trusted devices. Meanwhile, Bitquery’s tracking data shows that over 99% of the suspected stolen funds remain at addresses first used in the thefts as of early November 2, with no identified transfers to known exchanges.The company's analysis warns that the 682 withdrawal transactions they recorded do not represent an equivalent number of affected merchants, as individual wallets may have been drained through multiple separate transactions. BTCPay also cautions that some activities related to the identified addresses appear to have occurred prior to the reported incidents. They have not yet determined the full timeline of the attack or definitively identified which transactions were caused by the thefts. The project continues to collect reports and transaction records from affected merchants as part of its investigation into the breaches. By Oluwapelumi Adejumo

TESLA AND SAMSUNG OPPOSE NEW U.S. TARIFFS ON VIETNAM BEFORE NOVEMBER 29 DEADLINE. HANOI, November 2 (Reuters) - Businesses are divided on whether Washington should propose new tariffs on Vietnamese goods this month, with Tesla (TSLA.O) and Samsung (005930.KS) among those opposing, while others urge imposition of penalties, according to documents submitted to the U.S. government. The Trump administration set a November 29 deadline to conclude a trade investigation launched in May regarding allegations of intellectual property violations by this Southeast Asian nation. Vietnam has been placed on the “Priority Foreign Country” list—the first country added to America’s most serious monitoring list in 13 years. The U.S. has accused Vietnam of “persistently failing to address longstanding concerns regarding the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.” A separate investigation into allegations of excess production capacity is also underway. Vietnam has urged Washington to conduct investigations objectively. It remains unclear whether tariffs related to intellectual property violations would be applied broadly or only to specific industries. Currently, the U.S. imposes a general tariff of 12.5% on Vietnamese goods, enacted in July following an investigation into claims that Vietnam failed to prevent imports produced with forced labor. Vietnam, long accused of serving as a transit hub for Chinese goods, faced a 20% tariff after Trump’s “Liberation Day,” but that measure was overturned by the Supreme Court. Many economists believe the Trump administration’s goal is to reinstate at least the tariff level previously struck down by the Supreme Court. Electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla urged the U.S. Trade Representative to “consider the supply chain needs of U.S. manufacturers.” In comments submitted on July 2, Tesla stated that certain advanced components and precision manufacturing equipment cannot be produced domestically despite significant investments in U.S. manufacturing. Samsung’s U.S. unit made a similar argument, noting that Vietnam produces a significant portion of Samsung’s smartphones and networking equipment for the U.S. market. The South Korean company is Vietnam’s largest foreign investor, with total investments of approximately $25 billion. Retail corporations and trade associations representing industries with large-scale manufacturing operations in Vietnam—including footwear, apparel, and consumer goods producers such as bicycles or gaming consoles—also oppose additional tariffs. Vietnam’s exports to the U.S. surged 42% in the first eight months of this year compared to the same period in 2025, making Vietnam America’s largest goods trade surplus partner, surpassing China and Mexico. This figure far exceeds Vietnam’s fourth-place ranking at the end of 2025. STEEL, SOLAR, AND WOOD INDUSTRIES ACCUSE VIETNAM OF UNFAIR PRACTICES Industry groups representing U.S. producers of steel, seafood, plywood, solar panels, and wood products have accused Vietnam of unfair practices and called for new tariffs. Intellectual property holders—including companies in software, film, and music industries—have urged Washington to demand specific commitments from Vietnam to combat rampant piracy. The Business Software Alliance, which includes members such as Microsoft (MSFT.O), Oracle (ORCL.N), and IBM (IBM.N), cited a 2017 survey indicating that about three-quarters of software installed on personal computers in Vietnam was unlicensed. The survey criticized what it described as “inadequate enforcement,” despite repeated Vietnamese commitments to address the issue. The Motion Picture Association stated that Vietnam is a major hub for online copyright infringement, hosting websites distributing stolen film and television content that attracted over 12.5 billion global visits last year. The association called for stronger law enforcement and improved market access for legitimate streaming services. By Francesco Guarascio (Reuters)

Experts warn that quantum computing threatens blockchain security. Quantum computing poses a serious threat to blockchain security, prompting experts to unite in search of solutions. Here’s why Ethereum’s future may depend on it. Experts have sounded the alarm on the dangers quantum computing presents to blockchain cryptography, as highlighted in a recent post on X by Ethereum. This urgency is evident in a summit held in Cambridge, where experts gathered to develop solutions for quantum-resistant cryptography. This development underscores the critical need for the blockchain industry to rapidly enhance its security measures against increasingly advanced technological threats. What’s happening? Discussions at the Cambridge summit highlighted urgent concerns surrounding quantum computing’s potential to undermine current cryptographic methods used in blockchain technology. While Ethereum and other blockchains strive to maintain security, advances in artificial intelligence are accelerating the timeline for these threats to become reality. Experts emphasized the importance of proactive measures to strengthen cryptography and ensure the long-term resilience of blockchain systems against quantum attacks. Key details: Experts at the Cambridge summit identified quantum computing as a severe threat to blockchain security. They discussed strategies for upgrading cryptography to resist quantum threats. Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence are heightening concerns about this risk. The urgency to strengthen security measures has become paramount. Ethereum’s proactive approach highlights its commitment to blockchain security. By the numbers: Currently, Ethereum is experiencing a lull in trading activity, with no significant transaction volume recorded over the past 24 hours. Although the broader cryptocurrency market shows mixed signals, increased focus on security and technological advancements could influence investor sentiment in the future. Discussions around quantum threats are expected to resonate within the community, potentially impacting Ethereum’s market dynamics as stakeholders seek assurance in the technology’s long-term sustainability. Ethereum is a decentralized platform enabling smart contracts and decentralized applications (dApps) to operate without disruption, fraud, control, or interference from third parties. As the dominant platform for decentralized projects, Ethereum’s security is critical—making it vulnerable to threats from quantum computing. Upgrading its cryptographic systems is essential given the potential risks involved. What’s next? Traders and investors should closely monitor developments in quantum-resistant technology and their impact on Ethereum and the broader blockchain ecosystem. Discussions at the Cambridge summit may lead to practical insights and innovations in security protocols, potentially influencing market sentiment in the near term. The demand for secure cryptographic frameworks is likely to drive research and development initiatives, making this a key area to watch for future advancements. Cryptocurrency investing carries significant market risk and high volatility. By Deepika Kapparapu

MONEYGRAM IS USING BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY TO ENHANCE SERVICES. According to StellarOrg, MoneyGram is enhancing its services through blockchain technology. This transition signals new possibilities for digital finance. According to StellarOrg, MoneyGram is taking a significant step toward integrating blockchain technology into its services. A Twitter post highlighted community interest in innovative blockchain applications. This strategic shift could elevate MoneyGram’s services within the rapidly evolving digital finance landscape, strengthening the company’s position in a competitive market. Key Development The broader cryptocurrency market is currently showing mixed signals, but MoneyGram’s focus on blockchain is drawing attention. The company aims to leverage blockchain as a core component of its operations to improve product and service quality. This initiative aligns with the company’s recent efforts to innovate in digital finance, particularly following the launch of the MGUSD stablecoin on the Stellar blockchain. Key Points: 1. MoneyGram is applying blockchain technology to improve its services. 2. StellarOrg emphasized community interest in blockchain innovations. 3. This move signals a strategic shift in MoneyGram’s business model. 4. The integration aims to enhance user experience and service offerings. 5. MoneyGram’s focus on blockchain aligns with its recent launch of MGUSD. Numbers Currently, MoneyGram’s price remains stable at $0, with no trading volume recorded over the past 24 hours. This stability may reflect broader market conditions, as the cryptocurrency market experiences shifts in sentiment and activity. Although there is no immediate price movement, the strategic focus on blockchain suggests potential future developments that could influence market dynamics. MoneyGram is a prominent player in the financial services industry, specializing in money transfers and payments. Its recent pivot toward blockchain technology represents a significant step aimed at improving service quality and maintaining competitiveness amid rapidly changing financial landscapes. Key Metrics to Monitor Investors should closely monitor MoneyGram’s developments regarding blockchain integration. As the company advances its digital finance initiatives, any announcements regarding new product features or partnerships could signal shifts in market sentiment. Additionally, broader adoption of blockchain within the financial services sector may create further opportunities for MoneyGram, impacting its long-term growth trajectory. By Deepika Kapparapu

CENTRAL BANKS DEFINE THEIR ROLES IN THE COMMON PAYMENT SYSTEM WITH STABLECOINS. The BIS committee report outlines options for payment access, infrastructure, and oversight as stablecoins and tokenized deposits integrate into existing payment systems. The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI), chaired by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), published an analysis on October 29 outlining four central bank roles in an increasingly diverse payment system: issuer, operator, supervisor, and catalyst. This analysis examines stablecoins, tokenized deposits, programmed platforms, and other payment innovations. In its official announcement and online summary, CPMI describes central bank money as the foundation for reliable payments, alongside private payment services that support innovation, competition, and user choice. The publication links digital money to practical decisions regarding account access, infrastructure, supervision, and coordination. The summary states that central bank money provides the safest and most liquid payment asset for systemically important systems. It also supports par convertibility between different payment means—that is, conversion at equal face value. Private arrangements play a complementary role in this context. CPMI acknowledges the contributions of private entities in developing services that meet diverse user needs and foster competition, efficiency, and broader accessibility. Thus, this framework combines a common payment anchor with space for diverse payment services and private forms of money. CPMI examines stablecoins, tokenized deposits, and programmed platforms alongside fast payment systems and non-bank payment service providers. A recurring question is how these forms fit into the broader payment system. The summary also highlights enduring factors: network effects, the relationship between concentration and fragmentation, and trust in money. New technological arrangements entering a system remain influenced by these factors, making inter-party relationships part of the core policy challenge. Four central bank roles. Four sets of choices. As issuer, the central bank considers which entities may hold central bank accounts, what services they may access, and the terms of access. These three elements are closely interrelated: eligibility criteria determine who may use an account, while services and terms define the practical scope of that access. As operator, CPMI considers modernizing existing infrastructure or developing new platforms. CPMI weighs resilience, innovation, and deployment risk together in this decision. A potential technical improvement must be evaluated alongside the challenges of introducing and operating the infrastructure. As supervisor, the report assesses whether emerging forms—including stablecoins and tokenized assets—perform functions similar to those of financial market infrastructure. It also highlights systemic importance, governance, and operational resilience. For digital money forms, this directs attention to the functions they perform and the risks they may pose across the system. As catalyst, it brings stakeholders together to address collective action problems, support market-based solutions, and promote common practices and industry standards. This role integrates coordination into the same framework as providing accounts, operating infrastructure, and supervision. One payment system. Four central bank roles. CPMI’s official summaries link a reliable payment anchor with private innovation. Choose a role to explore its policy options. By Liam 'Akiba' Wright

DATA CENTER BUBBLE? MUSK WARNED THAT 200 AI CLOUD COMPUTING COMPANIES ARE AT RISK OF COLLAPSE. Elon Musk warned that 200 AI cloud computing companies are at risk of collapse! The data center bubble may face major challenges by 2027. The Neocloud battle between Elon Musk and NVIDIA’s Jensen Huang unfolds amid rising AI demand but shrinking capital availability. Analysis of risks to data center investments in Thailand by Dr. Methangkorn Sermsuk (CIIM – KMITL). The artificial intelligence (AI) industry is facing a major warning from Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, who stated that over 200 next-generation AI cloud service providers—known as Neoclouds—could face widespread failures and consolidations in the near future. This warning appeared in a CNBC report on October 26, 2026, in which Musk used the phrase “death and merger on a rainbow fish scale level,” comparing it to the collapse of numerous small companies in an intensely competitive market. The core issue is not whether AI will stop advancing, but whether the many companies borrowing massive sums to purchase GPUs, build data centers, and lease computing power can generate sufficient revenue and cash flow to repay their debts. In recent years, investment in AI infrastructure has been driven by expectations of ever-increasing computational power—for both training AI models and inference (delivering AI services to end users). However, as industries must invest heavily in expensive equipment upfront, while revenues and profits depend on uncertain future demand, financial risks are becoming increasingly apparent. This situation holds significant implications for Thailand, which is rapidly attracting massive investments into hyperscale and AI data centers. Therefore, the critical question is not merely how many more data centers Thailand will need, but how Thailand will be affected if the global AI and cloud computing industry enters a correction phase—and whether we should implement policies now to mitigate these risks. Neocloud refers to cloud infrastructure providers focused exclusively on leasing specialized AI computing power, such as GPU computing, AI model training, and AI inference. This business model is growing due to demand for high-performance GPUs, particularly NVIDIA’s hardware, which plays a central role in the AI computing market. Neocloud companies attracting investor attention include CoreWeave, Nebius, and IREN—firms building infrastructure for AI and computing services. The key distinction between Neoclouds and traditional hyperscale cloud providers like AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud lies in their business models and revenue diversification. Hyperscale cloud providers offer a broad range of services—from data storage and databases to enterprise software, cybersecurity, and AI services. In contrast, many Neocloud companies rely heavily on customers using GPU and AI computing to generate a significant portion of their revenue. Therefore, if demand for GPU leasing declines, computing rental prices fall, or newer GPU technologies render older equipment obsolete, some Neocloud providers may face greater financial pressure than diversified cloud providers with multiple revenue streams. However, each Neocloud company has unique capital structures, customer contracts, and risk profiles; thus, it would be incorrect to assume all face equal risk of failure. According to a CNBC report on October 26, 2026, Elon Musk commented on X that in recent weeks, the bond market has largely shut down financing opportunities for companies lacking substantial revenue from businesses beyond AI and data centers. Thus, Musk estimated that over 200 Neocloud companies could face failure or consolidation, with only a few surviving. This warning followed remarks by Chamath Palihapitiya, founder of Social Capital, who suggested that by 2027, a large volume of AI computing power may have already been purchased and deployed—but may fail to generate sufficient revenue to offset its investment costs. He believes 2027 could mark a major market correction, with companies that made poor investments forced to exit or merge. However, the figure of over 200 companies is an estimate based on Musk’s commentary—not a confirmed count of bankrupt entities. Moreover, SpaceX, the company Musk leads, owns its own infrastructure and computing businesses, giving it a competitive position in the AI computing market.Therefore, such warnings need to be analyzed alongside financial data and actual AI usage demands, rather than being interpreted as evidence that the entire Neocloud market is on the brink of collapse. According to CNBC, following Musk’s warning, shares of Neocloud companies CoreWeave, Nebius, and IREN declined in early trading on October 26 before recovering and rising again by the end of the day. Previously, CoreWeave and Nebius shares had dropped more than 30% over the course of about a month, while IREN shares fell approximately 40%. Investor concerns stem not only from demand for artificial intelligence but also from companies’ capital structures, which require substantial borrowing to expand computing capacity. In particular, CoreWeave is under close scrutiny after its credit default swap (CDS) costs and bond yields rose, reflecting market concerns about credit risk. However, a decline in stock prices or a rise in CDS indicators does not necessarily mean a company has defaulted. The market is assessing whether these companies can generate sufficient cash flow to support future investments and debt obligations. AI data centers differ from traditional data centers because a significant portion of investment is not only allocated to buildings, power systems, and cooling, but also to high-performance GPUs and networking infrastructure, which are extremely expensive. In the colocation hosting industry, operators can invest in buildings and supporting systems, then allow customers to install their own servers. However, many Neocloud sites require direct investment in GPU clusters to enable customers to rent computing power directly. Thus, risks have increased across multiple dimensions. First, GPUs have rapidly evolving technology cycles. Newer models may offer higher performance per watt than older ones, reducing the competitiveness of previously invested GPUs. Second, companies must invest before achieving maximum revenue. If customer utilization falls below expectations, GPU utilization rates will decline. Third, borrowed investments require companies to pay interest and repay principal, even if rental revenue from facilities fails to meet targets. Fourth, electricity, cooling, maintenance, and grid connectivity are ongoing operational costs. Finally, price competition may intensify as multiple service providers simultaneously expand capacity upon entering the market. These factors mean AI data centers are not merely digital real estate businesses—they are enterprises simultaneously exposed to technological, energy, and financial risks. Assume Neocloud invests 1 billion baht in a GPU cluster and supporting systems, with an average cost of capital of 10% per year and an economic asset life of four years. If the investment cost is amortized evenly over the project’s life, approximately 315 million baht in net cash flow per year would be required to recover the investment and generate the assumed return. These figures do not include detailed assessments of taxes, residual value, or other risks. If the company can lease GPUs at target maximum capacity, it may generate sufficient revenue to cover these costs. However, if utilization drops from 90% to 50%, the number of billable processing hours could decrease by approximately 44% compared to the original scenario. Meanwhile, investment costs and debt burdens do not decline at the same rate. If GPU rental prices also fall simultaneously, the company could face severe cash flow pressure. This example illustrates that Neocloud’s risk does not depend on the number of GPUs owned but on the ability to generate revenue from those GPUs over their investment lifecycle. Installed GPUs that remain unused by customers will not generate the profits investors expect—even if the data center’s power and cooling infrastructure is fully operational. While Elon Musk warns of potential failures among many Neocloud companies, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang argues that demand for Neocloud services remains extremely high. According to a CNBC report from the GTC event in Berlin, Huang explained that a key challenge for the industry is a lack of working capital to meet the growing demand for artificial intelligence. In other words, NVIDIA sees a market with strong demand for computing power, but service providers must invest enormous capital to rapidly build that capacity. Meanwhile, executives from Nebius and IREN confirm that customer demand remains robust, with ongoing discussions about utilizing computing capacity in 2027 and 2028. Thus, the differing perspectives between Musk and Huang reflect two potential risks that may emerge simultaneously. On one hand, demand for artificial intelligence (AI) may indeed grow rapidly. On the other hand, companies investing in AI infrastructure may face financial difficulties—even as the broader market continues to expand. Rapidly growing industries do not necessarily mean every company within them will be profitable.The history of the technology industry has shown that market growth can coincide with the failure of some entrepreneurs. If Musk’s and Palihapitiya’s predictions are at all accurate, 2027 could be the year when the AI infrastructure market begins to distinguish between truly competitive companies and those primarily expanding through capital investment. Companies with long-term customer contracts, stable revenue, low cost of capital, and efficient power delivery capabilities may have a higher chance of survival. Companies with high debt levels, insufficient contracted computing capacity, or high GPU and electricity costs may face liquidity risks. Mergers and acquisitions could occur as larger companies acquire assets from financially distressed businesses. In some cases, data centers and GPUs previously invested in may be sold below their original book value. On the other hand, mergers and acquisitions could enable financially stronger enterprises to expand processing capacity at lower costs. Thus, the restructuring of the Neocloud market does not necessarily mean the end of the AI industry—it could also be a process of competitive realignment. By Methangkorn Sermsuk

Chinese Tech Stocks Plunge Sharply, Bitcoin Moves Counterably—but Risks Remain Chinese tech stocks erased approximately $480 billion in market capitalization, while Bitcoin rose 26.6% over the same period. However, a rising daily correlation with the Nasdaq 100 indicates that margin liquidation risks have not subsided. Chinese tech stocks tumbled sharply, wiping out around $480 billion in market value, while Bitcoin climbed 26.6% during the same timeframe. Yet, this divergence is not enough to confirm that Bitcoin has fully decoupled from equity market volatility. According to data cited by CoinSlate on October 29, the STAR50 Index—which tracks 50 representative stocks on the STAR Market of the Shanghai Stock Exchange—fell 39.8% between July 9 and October 26. In contrast, Bitcoin rose 26.6% over the same period. However, Reuters reported that the daily return correlation between Bitcoin and the Nasdaq 100, calculated over 30 trading days of the U.S. equity market, rose to approximately 0.63 by October 26, up from 0.36 on July 9. This suggests that although the overall trend of the two assets diverged during the period, their daily price movements have become increasingly synchronized. One key factor closely watched by markets is financial leverage and the risk of cross-market fire sales. As margin pressures mount or investors are forced to sell assets to cover losses elsewhere, Bitcoin’s current rally could be vulnerable to external shocks. The critical question is whether the sell-off in Chinese tech stocks will trigger a cash crunch and cascading liquidations across other markets. If stock prices continue to decline and margin requirements rise, investors may be compelled to sell profitable assets—including Bitcoin—to boost liquidity. Meanwhile, inflows into spot Bitcoin ETFs have remained unstable. On October 22, these funds experienced net outflows of $636 million, but by October 26, they recorded net inflows of $110 million. These developments show that Bitcoin has demonstrated relative strength in the short term but cannot yet be considered fully insulated from risks originating in other asset markets. Amid heightened volatility, investors continue to closely monitor leverage pressures across markets and the potential for chain-reaction liquidations to spread into digital asset markets. By Yoonseo Lee

Visa: Annual Stablecoin Payment Volume Surpasses $25 Billion Visa announced that the annualized value of stablecoin payments has surpassed $25 billion, a tenfold increase compared to a year ago, while expanding its support for blockchain, stablecoins, and partner networks. Visa stated that the annualized value of stablecoin payments has exceeded $25 billion, up tenfold from the previous year. The company is also transitioning from traditional card payments to blockchain-based infrastructure for cross-border money transfers and payments. According to CoinPost on October 29, this information was disclosed by Visa during its Q4 fiscal year 2026 earnings call on October 27. The company clarified that the $25 billion figure is based on an annualized rate derived from recent transaction trends, not the actual cumulative value for the full year. Visa now supports payments on over 10 blockchains—more than double the number from a year ago. Supported stablecoins include USDC, USDG, EURC, PYUSD, and SBC. Visa CEO Ryan McInerney said the company aims to avoid dependency on any single coin or blockchain to meet diverse customer needs. Meanwhile, Visa is advancing its initiative to process fiat currency, stablecoins, and tokenized deposits on a single network. To support this goal, the company has joined Circle’s founding validator group for the Arc blockchain and serves as a validator on both Templa and Canton Network. In its international money transfer service, Visa Direct, Visa has moved the feature of pre-funding transfers with stablecoins from pilot to commercial rollout. Its first partner is Inyo Global, a U.S.-based payment infrastructure firm. Additionally, Open USD (OUSD), a stablecoin developed by a consortium including Visa, launched on September 30; by October 15, its circulating supply had surpassed $800 million. Visa’s stablecoin platform is now available in six countries and territories, including the U.S. and the U.K., with over 300 potential partners. The number of stablecoin-linked card programs has exceeded 225, and total issued cards related to stablecoins have reached five million across more than 50 countries. On financial performance, Visa’s Q4 net revenue increased 13% year-over-year to $12.1 billion. Adjusted earnings per share rose 17% to $3.48. For the full year, net revenue increased 15% to approximately $45.9 billion—the highest in the company’s history. Visa also reported it is deploying AI-integrated payment services with around 50 partners, including Shopify’s Shop Pay. However, the company emphasized that transactions directly initiated by AI for shopping and payments still represent only a small portion of overall activity. By Jae-won Choi

THE U.S. EXPANDS RESTRICTIONS ON OVERSEAS-MANUFACTURED EQUIPMENT TO INCLUDE DRONES, ROUTERS, AND VACUUM ROBOTS The U.S. is expanding FCC restrictions originally targeting Chinese telecommunications equipment to now include drones, routers, and vacuum robots, amid ongoing debate over the policy’s effectiveness and supply chain substitution capabilities. The U.S. government is broadening its restrictions on foreign-manufactured equipment, extending beyond Chinese telecommunications devices to encompass consumer goods such as drones, routers, and vacuum robots. Washington claims this move aims to reduce national security risks, yet the actual efficacy of the measures and the feasibility of supply chain alternatives remain contentious. According to The Verge, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has steadily tightened regulations on foreign-manufactured electronic devices since Donald Trump’s second term began. For over a decade, the U.S. has regarded Chinese telecommunications manufacturers such as Huawei and ZTE as national security threats. Subsequently, Washington restricted approval of new devices from these companies and required carriers to remove and replace existing equipment. However, some carriers have yet to complete this replacement process. Since December last year, regulatory controls have been expanded to include foreign-made drones. In March of this year, the FCC added consumer routers to its stricter approval list, and in July, it further extended restrictions to advanced robots and power inverters. The regulations on robots apply not only to autonomous robots but also to vacuum cleaners and lawn-mowing robots if they meet certain criteria. The core of the policy lies in the FCC’s restriction on granting approvals for equipment. By principle, products manufactured overseas and listed under these restrictions are barred from receiving approval for new sales in the U.S. However, previously approved products may still be sold or used. In some cases, the U.S. government may grant exceptions through conditional approvals. The FCC argues that foreign-manufactured devices could be exploited to leak personal data, be remotely controlled, or disrupt telecommunications networks. Conversely, critics point out that there is limited publicly available evidence detailing specific risks for each product category, and the criteria for granting exceptions lack transparency. In practice, Netgear and Asus have received conditional approvals for certain router models. Meanwhile, TP-Link—a company with Chinese origins—is struggling to launch new products in the U.S. market; the company has even announced plans to invest approximately $1 billion in manufacturing routers domestically. The challenge of securing alternative supply chains is no simple task. The majority of drones and routers sold in the U.S. are currently manufactured overseas, and the vacuum robot market is also heavily influenced by Chinese companies. The U.S. government hopes these new measures will support domestic production and strengthen supply chain security. However, some voices warn that these policies may reduce consumer choice and drive up product prices. By Choi Jae-won

Stellar’s Meridian Event Highlights Deep Insights into Finance. Headline news showcases Jordan Goldman’s profound insights at Meridian 2026, emphasizing a focus on practical finance. Here’s why this matters. Headline news showcases Jordan Goldman’s profound insights at Meridian 2026, emphasizing a focus on practical finance. Here’s why this matters. At the recent Meridian 2026 event, Stellar reposted a CoinDesk article, highlighting Jordan Goldman’s observations on the growing interest in Stellar’s focus on real-world financial applications. Emphasizing these practical use cases could attract further attention and investment into the Stellar ecosystem. As the cryptocurrency space evolves, initiatives like this may position Stellar favorably in a competitive landscape. Detailed Analysis The broader cryptocurrency market is currently showing mixed signals, reflecting divergent dynamics among major assets. In this context, Stellar’s Meridian 2026 event stands out, underscoring the project’s commitment to practical financial applications. Jordan Goldman’s insights into the rising interest in Stellar’s approach have resonated within the community, potentially elevating its significance in a volatile market. This focus may attract interest from both developers and investors seeking practical blockchain solutions. Stellar is a blockchain network designed to facilitate cross-border transactions and financial inclusion. The organization aims to connect banks, payment systems, and individuals, enabling efficient and affordable transactions. The Meridian event serves as a platform for Stellar to showcase its ongoing developments and innovations, reinforcing its position within the evolving financial landscape. Key Watch Points Traders and investors should monitor how Stellar’s focus on real-world applications impacts its market positioning. New interest in practical blockchain solutions could lead to increased adoption and investment in Stellar’s ecosystem. Additionally, tracking Bitcoin’s dominance in the cryptocurrency market may provide insights into potential shifts in market dynamics, as projects like Stellar strive to carve out their own niche. By Mikaeel