MARA Sells 13,597 Bitcoin for $1.1B as Its AI Pivot Reshapes Treasury Strategy

MARA has put a sizeable number on the changing economics of Bitcoin mining. In its third-quarter shareholder letter, the company said it sold 13,597 BTC after September 30 for approximately $1.1 billion, at an average selling price of about $81,039. It used $750 million of the proceeds to repay Bitcoin-collateralized loans, releasing 17,477 BTC that had been pledged as security.

TL;DR: MARA disclosed $1.1 billion of post-quarter Bitcoin sales and repayment of $750 million in BTC-backed borrowing. The miner is increasingly monetizing its coin reserves to support AI infrastructure and other capital priorities. This marks a meaningful departure from its earlier strategy of holding mined Bitcoin.

The balance-sheet logic behind the sale

At the end of September, MARA reported 34,012 BTC in total holdings, including a sizeable portion lent out or pledged as collateral. The newly disclosed disposals followed quarter-end, so that September balance should not be presented as the company’s current holding without adjustment. MARA said the repayments reduced the proportion of Bitcoin lent or pledged to less than 5% of its remaining holdings, versus roughly 57% at the earlier reporting date.

Management describes the move as a way to gain financial flexibility while still using Bitcoin strategically. Borrowing against the coins had helped finance the proposed acquisition of the Long Ridge natural-gas power business. The subsequent sale allowed MARA to clear the borrowing before the transaction closed, instead of leaving its financing exposed to future collateral calls if Bitcoin weakened.

That is a trade-off, not a free improvement. Selling reserve assets reduces direct exposure to any subsequent Bitcoin recovery. Keeping more BTC would preserve that upside but could require accepting additional liquidity and borrowing risk. The appropriate decision depends on the company’s priorities and its ability to earn a return on the infrastructure being funded.

Mining and AI now compete for the same capital

MARA’s third-quarter revenue fell about 35% from a year earlier to $164.2 million. Its mining operations still produce coins, but the company is now emphasizing power assets and potential data-center customers alongside hashrate. Long Ridge includes generating capacity and land that could support a data-center campus. Development plans are not the same as signed, revenue-producing leases.

The move also fits a wider sector pattern. NewsBTC recently reported how Riot sold more than 20,000 BTC while pursuing AI-related data-center agreements. The contrast with Strive’s rapid Bitcoin accumulation is useful: public companies can use the same underlying asset in radically different corporate strategies.

What investors should read past the headline

MARA also disclosed authorization for up to $500 million in share repurchases, while its reported quarterly profit included substantial accounting effects linked to digital assets. Those items should not be mistaken for recurring mining cash flow. Nor does an authorization guarantee that every dollar of the program will be spent.

The follow-up questions are whether Long Ridge closes, whether planned data-center leases are signed, how much Bitcoin remains unrestricted, and whether new AI revenue eventually justifies the capital committed. The BTC sale is confirmed. The return on the assets it may finance is still an execution story.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

from NewsBTC https://ift.tt/yNkL21b

Ether ETFs Shed $184.6M in a Day as BlackRock Leads Redemptions

The latest numbers from US spot Ether exchange-traded funds are another reminder that crypto’s institutional wrappers do not always move in sync with the networks beneath them. Farside Investors reports $184.6 million of net withdrawals on Monday, November 9. BlackRock’s ETHA accounted for $119.3 million, making it the largest identifiable contributor to the day’s negative reading.

TL;DR: US spot Ether ETFs lost $184.6 million on November 9. BlackRock’s ETHA recorded $119.3 million in outflows, with additional withdrawals from several other products. The latest session extends a run of weakness, but ETF flows alone cannot tell investors whether Ethereum’s network use or long-term adoption is improving.

The distribution of Monday’s redemptions

Monday’s fund table is more revealing than a single headline number. Besides ETHA, the negative entries included Grayscale’s ETH product at $25 million, BlackRock’s ETHB at $20.8 million, Fidelity’s FETH at $19.1 million and TETH at $2 million. Morgan Stanley’s MSSE reported a smaller $1.6 million positive flow. Netting these issuer-level movements produces Farside’s total of $184.6 million leaving the category.

It was the third consecutive negative session, after withdrawals of $99.9 million on November 5 and $93.3 million on November 6. Across those dates, approximately $377.8 million left the tracked funds on a net basis. NewsBTC’s earlier look at the November 5 outflow provides a useful baseline, while our October divergence report shows how quickly relative Bitcoin and Ether fund demand can change.

ETF investors are not the entire Ethereum economy

An ETF owns or obtains exposure to ETH for its shareholders. It does not capture every place ETH is held, used as collateral, staked or exchanged. The Ethereum network also supports stablecoin transfers, decentralized finance applications, tokenized securities and settlement activity. Those services can grow or contract independently of whether a US investment wrapper receives subscriptions on a particular day.

Equally, network activity is not automatically a bullish signal for ETH’s market price. Fees, token issuance, layer-two activity and competition for users influence how economic use may translate into demand for the asset. Sensible analysis keeps both sets of evidence in view rather than choosing whichever currently supports a favored market narrative.

A useful comparison with Bitcoin, and an important caveat

Bitcoin funds also recorded negative flows on November 9. That indicates this is not simply a one-day rotation from ETH into BTC within the US spot ETF category. Still, the products differ in investor base, structure, age and exposure, so the two daily totals should not be converted into a precise conclusion about relative institutional conviction.

One additional complication is reporting timing. Daily ETF tables are finalized after the US market closes and may be revised when an issuer reports late. Quoting an unfinished session as a completed result could create a false impression of reversal or acceleration. The figures here are dated specifically to November 9, and that time stamp should remain with the headline wherever the article is shared.

The next completed sessions will show whether ETHA’s withdrawals persist and whether other products begin drawing offsetting demand. Until then, Monday’s figures are strong evidence of weak investment-fund flows—not a definitive reading of the wider Ethereum economy or a forecast of the token’s next move.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

from NewsBTC https://ift.tt/X9prgI2

US Bitcoin ETFs Lose $201M as BlackRock Withdrawals Extend the Slump

US-listed spot Bitcoin funds recorded another difficult session on Monday, November 9. The updated Farside Investors flow table shows $201.0 million in net outflows across the group, extending a three-session losing streak. The important detail is that the negative total was not evenly spread across issuers: BlackRock’s IBIT recorded $213.2 million leaving, while Morgan Stanley’s MSBT attracted $22.1 million.

TL;DR: Spot Bitcoin ETFs lost a net $201.0 million on November 9, following $430.2 million on November 5 and $411.9 million on November 6. BlackRock drove Monday’s withdrawals, while one smaller fund reported inflows. The figures measure fund creations and redemptions, not the intentions of every Bitcoin investor.

Three sessions that add up to more than $1 billion

The latest fully reported Farside figures put the consecutive negative sessions at roughly $1.04 billion in aggregate. Thursday’s $430.2 million loss was followed by Friday’s $411.9 million and then Monday’s $201.0 million. That progression shows persistent selling pressure, although Monday’s net outflow was smaller than either of the previous two sessions.

Our previous report on Friday’s fund activity documented a similar pattern of issuer concentration. Going back further, the November 2 breakdown shows why it is worth examining individual ETF lines rather than reading the aggregate as a single institutional vote.

On November 9, ARK Invest and 21Shares’ ARKB showed a $9.9 million outflow. The positive contribution from MSBT offset part of the selling elsewhere. Several other funds showed no daily net creation or redemption. That does not mean no shares changed hands on exchanges; secondary-market trading and flows into or out of a fund’s underlying Bitcoin exposure are different measures.

Why IBIT carries so much of the story

BlackRock’s fund is a large and closely watched route into Bitcoin for investors using traditional brokerage and portfolio systems. Its persistent redemptions can therefore affect the tone of market commentary disproportionately. But the identity of an ETF’s end investors is not published in a daily flow table, and a withdrawal cannot automatically be attributed to hedge funds, pensions or retail holders.

The distinction between net flows and assets under management matters as well. A fund’s reported assets can fall when Bitcoin’s price drops even without corresponding redemptions. Conversely, share creations can occur on a day when the asset price weakens. Analysts who blend these concepts can make demand appear stronger or weaker than it actually was.

What would signal a more durable turn?

The next test is whether the large-issuer selling eases over several completed reporting sessions. One positive day would interrupt the streak but would not, by itself, demonstrate that buyers have regained control. It is also worth watching whether inflows broaden across products or remain confined to a single issuer.

These numbers are current through the November 9 US trading session, not an estimate of November 10 while trading is still under way. A better measure of sentiment combines a completed ETF flow series with spot volume, derivatives positioning and the changing rates outlook. For now, the latest evidence is that listed-fund demand remains weak even as the scale of net redemptions has moderated from last week’s peaks.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

from NewsBTC https://ift.tt/Kruxpb3

Bitcoin Faces a Tougher Rate Outlook After US October Inflation Rises 0.4%

The latest US inflation report has given Bitcoin traders a fresh reason to watch the bond market rather than just the crypto charts. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on November 10 that consumer prices rose 0.4% in October, above the 0.3% monthly increase economists had broadly expected. Core prices, which exclude food and energy, increased 0.3%. The headline figure slowed from September’s 0.6% increase but still points to inflation pressures that the Federal Reserve cannot easily ignore.

TL;DR: October US CPI rose 0.4% month on month and core CPI increased 0.3%. The hotter reading strengthened expectations of tighter monetary policy. For Bitcoin, the immediate transmission mechanism runs through interest-rate expectations, the dollar, liquidity and risk appetite—not a mechanical relationship between CPI and BTC.

Why a monthly CPI number matters so much

A quarter-point difference in inflation might sound small, yet markets were positioned around a particular expectation. When the result is higher than forecast, investors must reconsider how soon the Fed can relax policy, or whether further tightening is required. Higher Treasury yields can make cash and government securities more attractive relative to assets that offer no contractual income, including Bitcoin.

The BLS report is also unusual because it does not include a year-on-year October CPI rate. Data-collection disruptions during the federal shutdown in October 2025 left the agency without the normal comparison base. Readers should not fill that gap with an invented annual figure or compare an unofficial estimate with an official monthly release. Shelter costs increased 0.3% and accounted for more than 30% of October’s monthly rise, while food increased 0.5% and energy 0.7%.

Bitcoin’s sensitivity is about financial conditions

Bitcoin does not have a fixed reaction function to inflation. Some investors describe it as protection against monetary debasement, while others trade it as a high-volatility risk asset. Both descriptions can influence positioning, sometimes on the same day. A surprise that pushes real yields higher can pressure speculative positions even when the longer-run inflation-hedge narrative remains intact.

The distinction is especially relevant after recent fund withdrawals. Our report on November 6 Bitcoin ETF outflows explains why heavy selling through listed funds can complicate a market already reacting to macro news. ETF redemptions, however, are not the same thing as every Bitcoin holder exiting.

There is a corporate dimension too. Firms that finance Bitcoin positions with equity, debt or preferred shares may find the price of capital changes when bond yields rise. NewsBTC recently examined how Strategy combined a Bitcoin purchase with preferred-share repurchases. Those funding mechanics deserve attention when monetary policy becomes less forgiving.

The next signals to check

The market will now weigh Fed commentary, Treasury yields and subsequent employment and inflation releases. Traders should also distinguish a brief reaction to the 8:30 a.m. US data release from a sustained change in price direction; crypto trades continuously while other asset markets open and close on different clocks.

A higher-than-expected CPI reading is a real headwind for hopes of an imminent policy pivot. It is not a price target for Bitcoin. The stronger editorial conclusion is that the investment environment just became more demanding, particularly for leveraged traders who need both stable financing conditions and rising asset prices.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

from NewsBTC https://ift.tt/DGgXR83

US Sanctions Eight Canadian Money Services Firms Over Iranian Crypto Transfer Allegations

TL;DR: The US Treasury has added eight Canada-based money services businesses to its sanctions list, alleging that they helped move value for the Iranian regime and sanctioned actors. The November 6 action explicitly focuses on exchanges between local currencies and digital assets, demonstrating how crypto compliance disputes can arise at the point where cash, informal transfer networks and onchain wallets intersect.

The US Treasury has added eight Canada-based money services businesses to its sanctions list, alleging that they helped move value for the Iranian regime and sanctioned actors. The November 6 action explicitly focuses on exchanges between local currencies and digital assets, demonstrating how crypto compliance disputes can arise at the point where cash, informal transfer networks and onchain wallets intersect. It is a targeted designation, not a claim that ordinary Canadian remittances are inherently suspect.

Why Treasury targeted these businesses

The Office of Foreign Assets Control says the companies enabled conversion of Iranian rials and other currencies into digital assets used for cross-border payments. Several allegedly handled transactions linked to sanctioned Iranian crypto exchangers or wallet addresses associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Treasury also says some had changed names or addresses while remaining active. These are allegations and designations by US authorities; the release does not supply a separate court finding against every transaction. The policy rationale is to disrupt businesses officials believe provide a bridge from restricted counterparties to otherwise reachable financial channels.

The compliance effect is wider than a wallet list

OFAC designations can trigger obligations for US persons and firms subject to US jurisdiction, including blocking relevant property and avoiding prohibited dealings. Separately, exchanges, stablecoin issuers and payment companies may reassess exposure to identified counterparties. The official listing includes several Tron addresses, which may assist screening, but crypto enforcement cannot be reduced to one blockchain. A listed firm can change the addresses it uses, and a matching transaction must still be interpreted in its legal and operational context. Readers should distinguish a prohibited counterparty relationship from an unproven allegation about an unrelated user of the same network.

Why Canada is central to this case

Canada has established money service businesses handling remittances and currency exchange, including legitimate cross-border commerce. Treasury argues that particular operators were used to facilitate sanctioned Iranian flows. This creates a practical challenge for compliance teams: the business model of moving small international payments is not itself an indication of sanctions evasion. Screening requires understanding the firm, beneficial ownership, customer relationships and transaction patterns. A wallet-address match is useful evidence but cannot replace that broader inquiry, especially when a transaction passes through several custodians or payment processors.

A distinct measure from the MEXC action

The same day Treasury announced a separate FinCEN order restricting US institutional transfers to and from MEXC Global. The two announcements form part of Operation Economic Outcast, but they use different legal tools. Here, OFAC has designated specific businesses; in the exchange case, FinCEN is restricting financial transfers involving a named platform. Conflating the mechanisms would lead to confused headlines about who may transact and what happens next. The financial impact also depends on whether designated businesses have US-linked property, correspondent relationships or other reachable assets.

The next questions

The official OFAC list, including aliases and any later amendments, should be the reference point for compliance decisions. Investigators may publish additional evidence or update designations; businesses concerned about exposure need qualified legal advice rather than acting on social-media summaries. For the crypto sector, the larger story is the growing willingness of authorities to look past the chain itself and act against money movement businesses that turn digital assets into usable payment routes.

Primary source: US Treasury / OFAC. For additional context, see NewsBTC’s coverage of regulated fiat-to-crypto payment infrastructure.

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

from NewsBTC https://ift.tt/lgp7hu4

Stellar Foundation Backs Marketnode to Expand Tokenized Funds Across Asia-Pacific

TL;DR: The Stellar Development Foundation announced a strategic investment in Marketnode on October 29, aiming to widen institutional access to tokenized investment products in Asia-Pacific. Marketnode is backed by Euroclear, HSBC, SGX Group and Temasek, but the announcement did not disclose an investment amount or ownership percentage.

Tokenization is frequently described as a technology that makes financial assets available on a blockchain. The harder part is often distribution: who is allowed to buy the product, how ownership is recorded, and which regulated institutions can service it.

That is the focus of a Stellar Development Foundation investment announced October 29. The foundation said it had made a strategic investment in Marketnode, an Asia-Pacific digital-market-infrastructure company with backing from Euroclear, HSBC, SGX Group and Temasek.

Infrastructure for products, not just tokens

Marketnode works with funds, credit products and structured investments, supplying technology and services for issuance, distribution and ongoing servicing. The ambition is to connect the firms that originate investment products with distributors and eligible investors using blockchain rails where appropriate.

A token representing a fund interest does not necessarily make that fund available to anyone with a wallet. Eligibility requirements, investor onboarding, local laws, transfer restrictions and redemption arrangements still apply. In institutional markets, making those controls work is often the difference between an experiment and a product that can be distributed at scale.

The announcement says Marketnode has already worked with global and regional asset managers and has discussed onchain access to select BNY Investments funds on Stellar. It also identifies relationships with asset managers including Franklin Templeton, Maybank Asset Management, CGS International and WisdomTree.

Those references are evidence of an existing institutional network, but they should not be read as a guarantee that every product from every named organisation is universally available or that all its assets have migrated to Stellar.

Why Asia-Pacific is a strategic market

The region contains large financial centres, significant cross-border investment activity and a range of approaches to regulated digital assets. A platform that can coordinate issuance and distribution may lower some operational friction between asset managers, custodians and investors.

Still, a public blockchain can supply only part of the solution. Legal title, disclosure, investor protections, tax reporting and reconciliation with traditional securities systems remain essential. Marketnode’s experience with institutional processes may be as important to the foundation’s plans as the underlying Stellar network itself.

For comparison, NewsBTC has covered the NYSE’s plans for tokenized-securities infrastructure. Tokenization and settlement are related pieces of a wider market-infrastructure problem, and both must fit the compliance standards that institutions already face.

What the investment does not reveal

Neither the monetary value of the investment nor the stake acquired was specified in the foundation’s announcement. That limits any attempt to infer Marketnode’s valuation or measure how much capital Stellar is committing relative to its other ecosystem investments.

There is also a difference between financial backing and market adoption. An investment can help a company build integrations, expand teams or develop products, but proof of use will come from assets actually issued, transactions settled, and institutions actively servicing customers over time.

The next useful milestones would include disclosed product launches, participating financial institutions, client access arrangements and measurable volume. Stellar has identified a credible institutional distribution problem and is backing a company that works on it. How much of that infrastructure eventually runs through its network remains the question to watch.

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

Featured image: Singapore Financial District skyline across Marina Bay. Photo: Daniel Case via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.

from NewsBTC https://ift.tt/th7Y9vD

Crypto Mining Trends in 2026: Margins, AI and Energy

from Blog RSS feed https://ift.tt/QdeBP8r