League of Legends Crypto Betting: Dragons, Barons and Map Markets

League of Legends Worlds 2026 starts in Los Angeles on 15 October and ends at New York's Barclays Center on 14 November. Across four weeks, 19 teams chase a $5 million prize pool, and every game turns on the same objectives: towers, dragons and Baron Nashor.

Those objectives shape League of Legends markets far more than kills alone. Teams that control the map usually win it, and prices reflect that control.

Below: how a map is won, the Worlds calendar, the markets for LoL crypto wagers, and how Fearless Draft changes a five-game series.

How a Map Is Won

Each game, called a map, ends when one team destroys the enemy Nexus. The path there leads through a handful of neutral and structural objectives.

• Towers and inhibitors: towers guard the base along each lane, and destroyed inhibitors send stronger minions down that lane

• Dragons: elemental drakes spawn from early in the game, and the first team to take four earns Dragon Soul, a permanent team bonus

• Elder Dragon: once a team claims a soul, the Elder Dragon appears, and its powerful short-term buff often decides a close game

• Baron Nashor: from around the 20-minute mark, Baron grants a buff that helps a team push structures, and it frequently swings a game

• First blood and gold: the first kill and early gold leads signal momentum, though games often turn later

Objective control matters more than raw kills. Teams can trail on kills yet win the map through dragons, Baron and towers.

Worlds 2026 at a Glance

The championship returns to the United States this year.

Item

Detail

Dates

15 October to 14 November 2026

Play-in stage

Los Angeles

Main stages

Allen, Texas

Final

Barclays Center, New York, 14 November

Teams

19

Prize pool

$5 million

Knockout format

Five-game series, first to three wins, under Fearless Draft

MSI 2026 champion

Hanwha Life Esports

Last verified: September 2026

Korea's LCK and China's LPL send four teams each, while other regions send fewer, which shapes the favourites before a ball, or rather a minion, moves.

Market Types for League of Legends

Crypto sportsbooks price LoL through a familiar set of markets, split between whole series and single maps.

• Match winner: the team that wins the series

• Map handicaps and totals: a series score such as 3-1, or whether a five-game series goes the distance

• Kill markets: totals and handicaps on kills within a map

• First blood and early kills: which team scores the first kill, or reaches a set kill count first

• Objective markets: where offered, totals or first takes for towers, dragons and Baron

• Map duration: whether a game lasts longer or shorter than a set time

• Gold lead: which team holds more gold at set minute marks

Objective markets vary more than any other type between sportsbooks, so check the list for each match. Similar structures apply across other MOBAs, as markets on mobile esports show.

Fearless Draft and the Odds

Worlds knockout series use Fearless Draft, which bars a team from a second pick of any champion it has already played in the same series. The rule forces deeper champion pools as a series goes on.

This rule matters for game four and game five markets. Teams strong on a few comfort picks may fade late in a series, while teams with broad pools can grow stronger.

Series handicaps and total-maps markets often reflect that shift, and Dota 2 rankings of crypto platforms show how much esports depth varies between books.

League of Legends on Dexsport

Dexsport lists six Dexsport League of Legends market types: victory, totals, handicaps, first blood, first to 10 kills on a map, and the highest net worth at set intervals. Totals and handicaps cover map duration, destroyed structures, kills and maps.

Its rulebook shares one section between League of Legends and Dota 2 and uses Dota terms such as Roshan, so read each market's description to see how it maps to dragons, Baron and towers. Bets start from $1, stake limits vary by event, and Anjouan licenses the operator.

Conclusion

League of Legends games turn on objectives: towers and inhibitors, dragons and Dragon Soul, the Elder Dragon and Baron Nashor. Markets follow that logic, from map handicaps and kill totals to first blood and gold leads.

Worlds 2026 moves across the United States from 15 October to the final in New York on 14 November, with five-game knockouts under Fearless Draft.

Check the market list for each match, since objective markets differ between books. Check what your country permits, set a budget for the whole tournament, and bet only if you are of legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply. Responsible gambling matters across a long event.

 

 

Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice, and nothing here is a betting tip or prediction. Tournament details, game mechanics, and market lists change with patches and schedules, so check current details before you bet. Esports wagers involve risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please play responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

* This article was originally published here

Bitcoin Holds Firm as US 10-Year Yield Nears 19-Year High

As US 10-year bond yields broke out further to the upside, the US stock market saw a red day. In spite of this, Bitcoin was able to hold firm, with the bulls defending the key $83K level successfully. With the US 10-year bond yield moving ever closer to a 19 year high can the $BTC price continue to rise?

10-year yield in touching distance of 19-year high

Source: TradingView

The 4-hour chart for the US Government 10-year bond yield reveals just how close the yield is to reaching a 19-year high. The 5.29% level could be reached on Tuesday or Wednesday.

Up then back down for the yield?

Source: TradingView

Zooming right out into the monthly time frame the last high can be seen. Is the 10-year yield about to surpass this high? The answer is quite possibly yes, although would the yield continue to climb? The Stochastic RSI indicators have reached the top of their limit, plus we have the double top. Therefore, at least from a technical analysis perspective, a descent to at least the descending trendline, and perhaps to the top of the triangle pattern, would be a next logical move.

$BTC price funnels into a descending triangle

Source: TradingView

While the $BTC price is possibly in another channel, it also looks to be within a descending triangle. The price is currently being funnelled into the last third of this triangle and a breakout in either direction is probably going to happen soon. Given that the triangle is descending, it is generally bearish, although we will wait and see in which particular direction the price goes. It it’s to the downside, the top of the previous parallel channel will be support, while if it’s to the upside, first stop would be at the midpoint of the channel (dotted line), and then horizontal resistance at $86,700 and the opportunity to break out of the top of the channel.

If the 10-year yield continues its drive up to 5.29%, stock markets, gold, and risk assets like Bitcoin are probably going to suffer. Therefore, any trades would need to bear this in mind. In fact, trading in this environment would probably be a lot more unpredictable than usual.

$BTC at decision point for breakdown or breakout

Source: TradingView

In the daily time frame the triangle pattern looks more apt than another parallel channel, given the lack of touch points for the top of the channel. Therefore, the $BTC price is very close to the next decision point of a collapse through the strong support, or a breakout that heads back up to $86,700.

The Stochastic RSI indicators still have a way to go to come back down and fully reset. This is while all the lower time frame indicators are on their way back up.

The RSI is probably the best indicator here. As can be seen, the indicator line is holding above a descending trendline. If this trendline gives way, this could be the signal that price action is also going to fall.

$BTC tests $83K as new support

Source: TradingView

The weekly chart shows that the current weekly candle has come back down to test and confirm the previous resistance, which will be new support as long as the $BTC price holds above by the end of the week.

The question to be answered now is will bond yields come back down? If they don’t, this could be a difficult environment for risk assets to rise into.

It will be interesting to see how Bitcoin copes with this particular wall of worry.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

* This article was originally published here

Why Live Blackjack Outnumbers Roulette in Crypto Casino Lobbies

Open the crypto casino live lobby at a large platform and one game dominates the count. At the casino ranked first below, live blackjack fills 648 tables, while live roulette fills 161, roughly four blackjack tables for every wheel.

Roulette still draws big crowds. The difference comes from how each game handles players: a roulette wheel can serve thousands of bettors at once, while a classic blackjack table seats seven.

Studio economics, stake bands and branded tables push the numbers further apart. Below are the reasons behind the split, then six crypto casinos where live blackjack leads roulette.

Seats Set the Count

Capacity explains most of the difference.

Standard live blackjack tables deal to seven seats. Once those seats fill, other players can only bet behind or look for another table. Casinos that want thousands of people at blackjack during peak hours therefore need hundreds of tables live at once.

Roulette works differently. One wheel and one dealer can take bets from an unlimited number of players, because every bettor wagers on the same spin. Five or six busy roulette streams can serve the same crowd that needs dozens of blackjack tables.

Studios have answered the seat limit with shared-hand formats such as Evolution's Infinite Blackjack and Pragmatic Play Live's ONE Blackjack, where every player uses the same first two cards. Those tables absorb large crowds, yet classic seven-seat tables still make up most of the count.

Four More Forces Behind the Split

Capacity opens the divide, and four other factors widen it.

• Stake bands: studios run separate tables for low, mid and high stakes, and blackjack players care strongly about a table at their level

• Dedicated tables: operators can rent branded tables with their own logo and dealers, and most choose blackjack for that purpose

• Language and region: studios staff tables for specific languages and markets, and each language often gets its own set of blackjack tables

• Speed and rule variants: speed blackjack, early payout, side-bet versions and VIP tables each count as separate entries

Roulette variants exist too, such as speed, multiplier and single-zero wheels, but each one serves an unlimited crowd, so fewer copies do the job. The spread of live roulette tables across crypto casinos shows how few wheels a lobby needs.

Crypto Casinos Where Live Blackjack Leads Roulette

Every lobby below relies on the same multi-studio model, so blackjack tables outnumber roulette wheels in each. These crypto casinos ranked on blackjack depth, stake range and lobby clarity also appear in comparisons of casinos with 100+ live games, and counts vary by region.

1. Dexsport

Dexsport lists 648 live blackjack tables against 161 roulette tables, inside a Dexsport live casino section of around 870 in total.

Two live dealer studios, Pragmatic Play Live and Evolution, supply most of them, from low-stakes seven-seat tables to VIP and shared-hand formats. Baccarat adds 238 card tables, under an Anjouan licence.

2. Stake

Stake operates a large live casino built on major studios, and its blackjack section spans casual tables through high-limit rooms.

Shared-hand formats stand beside classic seven-seat games, which keeps seats open at busy times. Roulette covers the main variants with far fewer tables, in line with the capacity pattern.

3. BC.Game

BC.Game draws live tables from several studios, which gives its blackjack section a wide spread of stakes and languages. Speed and side-bet versions add to the count. Its roulette section offers plenty of variants, yet each wheel serves a large crowd, so the table total stays well below blackjack.

4. Vave

Vave's live lobby leans on mainstream studios and follows the same shape, with blackjack tables in far greater number than roulette. The mix suits players who want a seat at mid-range stakes. Published detail on table rules is lighter than above, so check payouts at each table before you play.

5. Mega Dice

Mega Dice brings a live casino into a Telegram-first product, with blackjack tables from established studios across several stake bands. Roulette appears in smaller numbers.

The phone-friendly layout suits quick sessions, though documentation on individual table rules is thinner than at the platforms ranked higher.

6. Cloudbet

Cloudbet offers a live section focused on mainstream studios, with blackjack tables that cater well to higher stakes. Its overall live catalogue is smaller than the leaders', yet blackjack still outnumbers roulette, and a track record since 2013 appeals to players who value an established brand.

Last verified: September 2026

Conclusion

Live blackjack outnumbers roulette because of capacity. Classic blackjack tables seat seven players, while one roulette wheel serves an unlimited crowd, so casinos need far more blackjack tables to meet the same demand.

Stake bands, branded tables, language-specific dealers and rule variants widen the divide. Dexsport leads the list with 648 live blackjack tables against 161 roulette tables, ahead of Stake and BC.Game.

Choose tables by rules, not only by availability, and check payouts before you take a seat. Look up the law in your country, fix a limit for each session, and join a table only if you are of legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply. Responsible gambling matters at quick live tables.

 

Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice. Table counts, studios and rules change and vary by region, so check current details on each platform before you play. Casino games involve risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please play responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

* This article was originally published here

Vitalik Buterin Sets Out Ethereum’s ‘Cryptographic World Computer’ Vision for 2030

In his September 27 essay, “The cryptographic world computer”, Vitalik Buterin describes Ethereum’s 2030 endpoint as a hybrid system rather than a larger version of today’s chain. Blockchain consensus would sit alongside cryptographic privacy and verification, while powerful decentralised components operate away from the base chain.

The shift would redefine Ethereum’s “world computer” ambition. Instead of requiring every participant to download and re-execute all computation, specialised computers would perform workloads and produce compact cryptographic proofs for others to check. Data-availability sampling and SNARK verification would support that model, allowing the network to establish that computation was performed correctly without making every verifier perform it again.

Proof systems and data availability are intended to weaken the link between the amount of computation being verified and the cost borne by verifiers. The unresolved issue is whether Ethereum can distribute trust across specialised infrastructure without concentrating operational control there, particularly while current rollups still rely heavily on centralised sequencers.

Proof-based verification over universal execution

In Buterin’s model, Ethereum moves away from requiring every node to download and re-execute transactions. Data-availability sampling and SNARK verification would allow specialized computers to execute workloads and produce compact cryptographic proofs that other participants can check.

The result is a different division of labour, not an abandonment of broad participation. Verification remains accessible without universal duplication of execution because participants need to establish data availability and proof validity, rather than reprocess the full workload. Blockchain consensus, privacy and cryptographic verification remain the architecture’s trust anchor for powerful off-chain components; Ethereum’s base layer settles the conditions under which their claims can be accepted.

That direction is already visible in Ethereum.org’s scaling roadmap: rollups have reduced costs through blob storage, and future data-availability sampling is intended to let validators check small portions of large datasets instead of downloading everything. The 2030 vision extends an architecture Ethereum is already pursuing, though Buterin says efficient, safe proof generation remains difficult and that managing and parallelizing access to very large state may be the more complex system-level problem.

A modular world computer

The technologies Buterin associates with the period after Ethereum’s planned Hegotá upgrade show how expansive this model is meant to be. He identifies recursive STARKs, automated formal verification, optimised proof-of-stake consensus, multi-party block construction and quantum-safe cryptography as defining elements of that post-Hegotá environment.

Recursive STARKs are central to the logic of compact verification. If proofs can themselves be aggregated and verified through further proofs, a verifier can assess a large body of computation through a much smaller object. In practical architectural terms, that creates a path for Ethereum to secure more computation than its individual nodes could feasibly run in full.

The other items on Buterin’s list point to a broader engineering programme rather than a single scaling upgrade. Formal verification concerns confidence in the systems producing and checking these cryptographic claims. Optimised proof-of-stake consensus concerns the network coordinating around them. Multi-party block construction addresses a part of the transaction-production pipeline where control can otherwise be concentrated, while quantum-safe cryptography speaks to the durability of the security assumptions behind the design.

That combination is why the phrase “cryptographic world computer” is more precise than a generic claim that Ethereum will become faster. A monolithic chain makes one execution environment the centre of the system. Buterin’s endpoint envisages a network in which specialised layers and machines can undertake differentiated tasks, provided their outputs can be verified under Ethereum’s security framework.

The modular design also makes data availability a first-order concern. A proof may attest that a computation produced a result correctly, but users and other systems may still need access to the underlying data needed to reconstruct or exit from a system. Ethereum’s roadmap places data-availability sampling at the centre of making that access verifiable at scale, rather than treating it as an auxiliary storage problem.

Privacy enters the verification architecture

Privacy is not presented as a separate application feature in Buterin’s account. He places cryptographic privacy alongside consensus and verification, making it a property Ethereum wants its underlying architecture to support.

The roadmap gives that objective several forms: shielded ETH and ERC-20 transfers, private proving, zkVM-based execution and research into fully homomorphic encryption, which would enable computation over encrypted data. Ethereum’s privacy roadmap therefore points to a system that can establish whether rules were followed without requiring every observer to see the underlying information.

Verification still has to be efficient and credible. Buterin’s framing leaves privacy-preserving systems carrying the added cost and complexity of proof generation, while the same infrastructure is expected to support scalable computation, private activity and decentralised participation. That combination increases the risk of a bottleneck at one layer.

Illustration explaining how a lightweight wallet could verify Ethereum’s cryptographic proofs without repeating all network computations. — Source: CoinDesk

State growth and sequencer control

In Buterin’s account, efficient and safe proofs remain difficult, while managing and parallelising access to very large state may be the more systemically complex challenge. Proof-based verification does not remove the need to maintain and access the state required by computation. As applications and rollups create more activity, safely organising that state and allowing concurrent access without breaking the system’s guarantees becomes a deeper design problem.

Rollups are a major route for Ethereum scaling, and blob storage has reduced their costs. Yet current rollups still rely heavily on centralised sequencers, according to the roadmap materials cited by Buterin.

Ethereum Foundation roadmap materials caution that timelines are targets rather than guarantees. The proposed 2030 architecture would shift Ethereum from universal transaction re-execution towards specialised computation verified through compact proofs.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

* This article was originally published here

Monthly Freebet Clubs at Crypto Sportsbooks: How Turnover Tiers Work

Turnover clubs pay free bets for the amount you stake in a month, whatever the result. Stake $200 and you earn a small freebet; stake $1 million and the reward reaches thousands.

Monthly freebet clubs, also called turnover clubs, sort players into tiers by total sports stakes over a calendar month and credit a freebet at the start of the next. Results do not matter.

The headline rewards look generous at the upper end. Against the stakes behind them, most tiers return well under 1%, and freebet conditions cut that further.

How a Turnover Club Works

The mechanics follow a common pattern across crypto sportsbooks.

• Turnover counts, not profit: every eligible stake adds to the monthly total, win or lose

• Tiers set the reward: each threshold unlocks a fixed freebet, and higher tiers unlock larger ones

• Eligibility rules filter bets: minimum stakes and minimum odds decide which bets count

• Freebets come with their own terms: bet-type rules, odds limits and an expiry

This last point matters because freebets pay winnings only, without the stake itself. Freebet value therefore falls below the number printed on it, and the shortfall widens at short odds.

Dexsport's Sports Club Tiers

Dexsport offers a nine-tier Sports Club, and Dexsport freebets reach accounts on the first day of each month.

Tier

Monthly sports turnover

Freebet reward

Freebet bet type

Novice

$200 to $999

$5

Combo of 3 to 4 events, odds 1.3 to 5.0

Base

$1,000 to $4,999

$20

Combo of 3 to 4 events, odds 1.3 to 5.0

Player

$5,000 to $14,999

$50

Combo of 3 to 4 events, odds 1.3 to 5.0

Champion

$15,000 to $24,999

2 × $50

Combo of 3 to 4 events, odds 1.3 to 5.0

Expert

$25,000 to $99,999

2 × $75

Single bet, odds 1.8 to 3.0

Genius

$100,000 to $249,999

2 × $250

Single bet, odds 1.8 to 3.0

Hero

$250,000 to $499,999

5 × $200

Single bet, odds 1.8 to 3.0

King

$500,000 to $999,999

5 × $600

Single bet, odds 1.8 to 3.0

Legend

$1,000,000 to $10,000,000

5 × $2,000

Single bet, odds 1.8 to 3.0

Last verified: September 2026

The promotions page describes these turnover tiers, although one FAQ entry on the site describes the club in terms of a month in the red. Confirm the current rules with support before you plan around a tier.

The Reward as a Share of Turnover

Divide each reward by the turnover behind it, and sports turnover rewards look far smaller.

Tier

Reward at the tier's entry point

Reward at the upper end of the band

Novice

2.5%

0.50%

Base

2.0%

0.40%

Player

1.0%

0.33%

Champion

0.67%

0.40%

Expert

0.60%

0.15%

Genius

0.50%

0.20%

Hero

0.40%

0.20%

King

0.60%

0.30%

Legend

1.0%

0.10%

Three points stand out. Each tier's entry point gives the highest rate, so a player just over a threshold earns the most value for that band. Rates fall steadily through each band. And the lowest tier, at $200 of monthly stakes, gives the highest share of all.

Set against the built-in margin on a typical sportsbook line, often 4% to 5%, the reward offsets only a small part of the cost of the stakes. It pairs more naturally with weekly cashback, which responds to losses where a turnover club does not.

Conditions That Shape the Value

Several rules decide which bets count toward the total and how you can use the freebet.

• Eligible bets: a minimum stake of $5 and minimum odds of 1.3, across all sports

• Combos: a combo counts if at least one event has odds of 1.3 or higher

• Entry: a confirmed email address on the account

• Freebet balance: freebets stay in a separate balance and go on the slip through Place Freebet

• Esports: freebets do not apply to esports bets

• Odds caps: the maximum freebet coefficient is 5 from Novice to Champion and 3 from Expert to Legend

The combo requirement for lower tiers shapes the outcome most. Freebets on three or four legs pay only when every leg wins, so its expected value drops further than a single-bet freebet at the same face value. Combo bets multiply the margin as well as the odds.

Conclusion

Monthly freebet clubs reward turnover, not results. At Dexsport, nine tiers stretch from $200 of monthly sports stakes for a $5 freebet to $1 million or more for five $2,000 freebets.

Measured against the stakes, most tiers return less than 1% of turnover, and the highest rates come at each tier's entry point. Freebets pay winnings without the stake, which lowers their value again.

Treat a club reward as a small rebate on activity you would place anyway, not a reason to stake more. Check local law, set a monthly limit, and bet only if you are of legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply. Responsible gambling matters most near a tier threshold.

 

 

Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice, and nothing here is a betting tip. Promotional tiers, rewards and terms change and can be withdrawn, so check the current rules on the platform before you rely on any programme. Sports wagers involve risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please play responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

* This article was originally published here

JPMorgan Says Bitcoin Above $85,000 Production Cost Could Ease Miner Selling

Bitcoin’s recent move above JPMorgan’s estimated average production cost of about $85,000 is relevant less as a standalone price signal than as a possible change in miners’ funding pressure. JPMorgan’s view is conditional: if Bitcoin remains above that level for long enough, miners may face less need to sell newly mined or treasury-held BTC. The estimate is a soft threshold, not an unbreakable market floor.

Bitcoin was around $84,187 when checked on September 25, slightly below the threshold after recently moving above it. A brief move above an average production-cost estimate does not automatically eliminate miner selling pressure or make every operation economical, since miner economics vary substantially by operator.

The practical question is therefore whether realised revenue stays high enough, for long enough, to affect equipment and financing decisions and the amount of BTC miners must sell to meet operating obligations.

The $85,000 threshold is a soft floor

JPMorgan described production cost as a “soft floor”, rather than a hard price floor. That framing is important. Mining does not stop across the network the instant BTC falls below an estimated average cost, nor do miners automatically become cash-generative the instant it rises back above one.

Instead, sustained sub-cost pricing tends to concentrate stress among operators with less efficient fleets, higher electricity costs, weaker access to capital or lower cash reserves. Those companies may sell Bitcoin to finance operations, turn off machines, or leave the market. The resulting reduction in network capacity can eventually lower competition for the remaining miners, but that adjustment is neither immediate nor uniform.

JPMorgan’s estimate therefore provides a useful sector-level reference point. It describes the broad economics confronting mining operators, not the exact break-even price for each business or each piece of hardware. Nor does it establish that BTC must trade at that price: market prices can remain below estimated production costs while miners absorb losses, use cash, sell inventory or reduce capacity.

A sustained recovery above the benchmark could ease those choices at the margin. It could mean fewer BTC sales by miners that had been using holdings as a source of liquidity, particularly if their operating costs are close to the sector average. But the word “sustained” carries most of the analytical weight. At $84,187 on September 25, Bitcoin remained just under the estimate that JPMorgan had identified as the relevant pressure point.

A 280-day sub-cost stretch has already driven capacity out

JPMorgan’s comparison is stark: Bitcoin prices had spent roughly 280 days below production cost, against about 224 days during the 2018 bear market.

The bank also cited a roughly 19% fall in hash rate from its October peak and a roughly 15% decline in mining difficulty. In its reading, some uneconomic capacity had already left the network.

Those figures describe a network that has begun to adjust before any sustained move above the roughly $85,000 production-cost estimate. When high-cost miners sell Bitcoin, shut equipment, or exit, lower capacity can reduce the computational burden for the operators still active and improve their marginal economics.

That is why the estimate functions as a soft floor rather than a hard stop. A recovery above it would arrive after an extended shakeout; lower hash rate can show both the discipline of the survivors and the extent of the capacity loss that preceded them.

Public-miner costs are not one number

CoinShares put publicly listed miners’ weighted-average cash cost at approximately $79,995 per BTC in the fourth quarter of 2025, close to JPMorgan’s $85,000 estimate. That makes JPMorgan’s figure a plausible broad sector benchmark for a sizeable share of listed mining capacity.

Costs vary widely by measure and operator. Riot Platforms reported a first-quarter 2026 cash cost excluding depreciation of $44,629 per BTC, while CoinShares estimated fourth-quarter 2025 all-in costs of $153,040 for MARA and $170,366 for Riot. Riot’s measure excludes depreciation, CoinShares’ figures are all-in estimates, and the reporting periods differ. The variation shows why an industry-wide production-cost estimate is not a company-specific profitability measure.

Miners’ cost structures and financial positions differ, so the data do not support treating every public miner as equally compelled to sell below $85,000 or equally relieved from selling above it. If Bitcoin remains above JPMorgan’s estimated average production cost, selling pressure may ease for miners closest to that margin, but sector-wide BTC sales would not necessarily cease and miners would not necessarily make identical treasury decisions.

Treasury depletion and AI revenue reshape the selling question

Mining economics are only part of the immediate selling calculation. CoinShares said publicly listed miners collectively reduced their BTC treasuries by more than 15,000 BTC from peak levels. It also estimated that roughly 15% to 20% of the global mining fleet was unprofitable at the reported hash price, according to its first-quarter 2026 mining report.

That combination limits the case for declaring a quick end to miner-related supply pressure. Treasury sales already made cannot be reversed by a modest price rebound, and the unprofitable portion of the fleet points to continuing strain somewhere in the network. A miner that has drawn down holdings during a 280-day sub-cost period may still prioritise liquidity even if spot BTC temporarily moves above an average cost estimate.

The sector’s move toward artificial intelligence and high-performance computing introduces a second complication. JPMorgan said miners are redirecting capacity toward AI revenue. In one direction, that can slow Bitcoin hash-rate growth because resources that might have supported mining are allocated elsewhere.

In the other direction, diversified revenue can reduce reliance on selling BTC to fund operations. For companies able to make that shift, the link between Bitcoin’s price and required treasury sales may become less direct, although the effect will depend on each operator’s exposure to those businesses and cannot be assumed across the sector.

JPMorgan’s $85,000 level is consequently best viewed as a conditional relief point after a lengthy industry adjustment. It identifies where aggregate economics may become less punitive. The extent to which that becomes lower BTC selling will be decided by uneven costs, the state of miners’ remaining treasuries and whether non-mining revenue is sufficiently material to change their cash needs.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

* This article was originally published here

Raiffeisen Expands Bitpanda Crypto Partnership Across Central and Eastern Europe

On September 23, 2026, Raiffeisen Bank International (RBI) and Bitpanda agreed a group-wide framework for digital-asset services across RBI’s Central and Eastern European markets.

Bitpanda Enterprise will supply the underlying infrastructure for RBI network banks. Bitpanda said the arrangement could enable those banks to offer digital assets to approximately 18 million customers through a progressive, locally tailored rollout.

The framework expands on Bitpanda’s initial Austrian deployment, but availability will be determined market by market rather than launched across the group simultaneously.

Bitpanda Enterprise becomes RBI’s group-wide infrastructure provider

RBI and Bitpanda say Bitpanda Enterprise will provide the infrastructure for a group-wide framework that allows banks across RBI’s CEE network to offer digital-asset services.

The companies described a progressive, locally tailored rollout, with individual local banks determining implementation and offerings. Bitpanda’s announcement estimates the framework could reach approximately 18 million customers, a measure of potential network reach rather than immediate access for all customers.

RBI says it operates subsidiary banks in 11 CEE markets and serves 18.8 million customers through roughly 1,300 branches.

The expansion extends Raiffeisenlandesbank Niederösterreich-Wien’s 2024 model

The broader arrangement builds on a model already used by Raiffeisenlandesbank Niederösterreich-Wien, or RLB NÖ-Wien. That bank launched Bitpanda-powered crypto access within its existing banking environment in 2024.

That earlier launch matters because the new framework is an extension of a bank-integrated approach rather than a newly announced model without an existing deployment. Der Standard reported that the model is being extended gradually across RBI’s CEE subsidiaries.

The announcement hinges on a distinction between infrastructure and distribution: Bitpanda Enterprise is intended to provide the behind-the-scenes service, while RBI’s local banks retain the customer-facing role in markets where they elect to proceed.

Christian Trummer, Co-CEO of Bitpanda, and Michael Höllerer, CEO of Raiffeisen Bank International; photo by Sabine Klimpt. — Source: Bitpanda Group

Local RBI banks control the pace and product offering

The agreement creates a group-level route for expansion, not an immediate network-wide launch. Bitpanda describes a progressive, locally tailored rollout, with each RBI bank deciding whether to offer digital-asset services, when to do so, and which products to make available.

Customers in different RBI markets may consequently receive different access, timetables, and product ranges. The practical next step will be announcements from the relevant local bank.

Bitpanda’s infrastructure is intended to provide access through existing banking relationships, without a separate crypto account or application, according to its description of the framework.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

* This article was originally published here