Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Bitcoin

Bitcoin Surges to $86,455, an 8-Month High, After America's SEC Announces Tokenized Stock Experiment (yahoo.com) 124

Posted by EditorDavid from the magic-internet-money dept.
August 15: $62,991
September 23: $86,456
Bitcoin shot up 37% over the last 39 days, reaching an eight-month high on Monday. "Bitcoin is back," declares Yahoo Finance: The token held near $86,000 on Tuesday after a stunning multisession rally... [Fundstrat head of digital assets Sean Farrell told Yahoo Finance on Monday] "I think the crypto winter is over, although that does not necessarily mean the path higher will be linear." For now, momentum is on crypto's side, with bitcoin jumping more than 5% on Friday and another 6% on Monday. "We believe crypto is in the early innings of a new bull market and we see few signs of overheating," Compass Point analyst Ed Engel wrote on Tuesday.

The move looks "like a combination of renewed ETF demand and a large short squeeze," Nicolai Søndergaard, senior research analyst at Nansen, said as traders betting against bitcoin are forced to buy it back, adding further fuel to the rally.
Bitcoin got bad news and then good news last week. After the U.S. Congress failed Thursday to pass a cryptocurrency 'Clarity Act', America's Securities and Exchange Commission instead announced a tokenized-stock experiment. It's a five-year "innovation exemption" that "creates a path for tokenized U.S. stocks to trade through automated market makers on public blockchain," according to CoinDesk. Yahoo Finance notes that Bitcoin and other altcoins surged after the announcement.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bitcoin Surges to $86,455, an 8-Month High, After America's SEC Announces Tokenized Stock Experiment More

Bitcoin Surges to $86,455, an 8-Month High, After America's SEC Announces Tokenized Stock Experiment

Comments Filter:

  • shakes head (Score:5, Insightful)

    by evanh ( 627108 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2026 @06:46AM (#66348200)

    Some people clearly still have too much money.

  • And still no Epstein Files (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Crypto remains a scam.

  • Bitcoin - victim of its own success (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cmseagle ( 1195671 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2026 @06:54AM (#66348214)

    IMO, a major headwind facing the price of Bitcoin is that its advocates have already gotten so much of what they could have possibly hoped for. So many of the milestones that boosters viewed as the "next big thing" that would cause Bitcoin to really take off are past us: you can buy a Bitcoin ETF, big banks have entered the market, governments take it seriously, etc.

    If you're buying into the Bitcoin market now, there's less to look forward to as a potential "gamechanger" that'll make the price jump, while the same challenging question of whether they hold any real underlying value remain. Sure, there are more hypotheticals to look forward to (maybe the US does eventually go ahead with that "strategic Bitcoin reserve"), but the gap between present reality and potential future upside continues to shrink.

    • This is simple physics. The bigger the mass the more the attraction, and this can also increase the stability unless something unnatural happens (like every government deciding on the same day to introduce some heavy taxation). It takes longer for the price to change when it grows, as the involved masses will operate less in sync due to distances, timezones, etc.

    • Re:Bitcoin - victim of its own success (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2026 @10:58AM (#66348600) Homepage Journal

      its advocates have already gotten so much of what they could have possibly hoped for

      Except the one thing that actually matters: being able to really use it. I still (in 2026!) can't use Bitcoin to pay for things at my local grocery store, car mechanic, or even Amazon.

      Bitcoin didn't take off. Unless it suddenly gets more popular by a few orders of magnitude, it remains a useless dead end.

      • Re:Bitcoin - victim of its own success (Score:4, Funny)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2026 @01:17PM (#66348798)
        Sure but you CAN use it to bribe the president. Progress!

      • Well... you can't generally use chunks of gold to buy those goods and services either.

        To be clear I'm not pretending they are the same. I believe in gold as a store of wealth. Bitcoin mystifies me.i don't understand what the fuck any of it rests on. And I understand it pretty much too to bottom. I just don't "understand" it.

        • To be clear I'm not pretending they are the same. I believe in gold as a store of wealth. Bitcoin mystifies me.i don't understand what the fuck any of it rests on.

          Everything has a supply curve and a demand curve, including gold and bitcoin. Where the curves cross, that is the price. This is economics 101, which you never took.

          Air is more "innately valuable" than gold, but you don't pay money to breathe.

          • I have no problem with supply and demand. I did take basic economics. You so wildly misunderstood my point that I'll have to simplify it. Why the demand exists at all is mystifying.

            • Why does demand for bitcoin exist? No government can prevent payments in Bitcoin, that's why it was created. North Korea, Iran, hackers, Wikileaks, etc use Bitcoin. If you want to pay a toll to Iran to transit the strait of Hormuz, you can pay it in Bitcoin. I've heard you can use it to send money over the Russian border to avoid sanctions (I haven't tried).

            • Why the demand exists at all is mystifying.

              No, it isn't. It's simple, and there are two reasons: stupid people and speculators.

              The stupid people think it's going to become a currency in some meaningful way instead of just an instrument of speculation. There's lots of reasons why it won't.

              The speculators might also be individually stupid, but they aren't wrong that you can make money by buying and selling BTC, because some people are doing it.

    • governments take it seriously

      The only thing governments are taking seriously about it is closing tax loopholes. The only governments which really back bitcoin are those who are insanely fiscally irresponsible such as Brazil, El Salvador, and the country which has the most external debt on the planet, the USA.

      So you support bitcoin do you? Let me guess, you're paying off your credit card debt with another credit card?

      • So you support bitcoin do you? Let me guess, you're paying off your credit card debt with another credit card?

        Ha. Absolutely not. I have the same thoughts on Bitcoin as I did when I first became aware of it: "This just doesn't seem all that useful, other than for the hope that one day I can sell it for more than I bought it."

        When Bitcoin first entered my consciousness it was worth $10/coin, so I clearly undervalued the potential of that "hope the price might go up". I wish I'd bought Bitcoin in the same way that I wish I'd picked yesterday's winning lottery numbers.

    • Bitcoin also has a bunch of regulators scrutinizing it. Combine this, with the pushback against data centers, be it AI data centers, or Bitcoin mining data centers, and it is expected to see BTC grow a bit, just because people can put money into it, perhaps as a long term "hodl" type of thing, but this doesn't mean it is going to hit the moon anytime soon. Especially if more data centers get hit by missiles and large swaths of Internet get blown away.

    • I agree, when I got into Bitcoin I thought adoption would take off due to fees and micropayments but now that Bitcoin is popular the fees are too high for those use-cases,. Also $1Million is only a 10x, stocks offer ten bagger opportunities as well. Bitcoin is still a solid investment but it's not amazingly better than a good value stock pick. If Bitcoin isn't your thing: Copy Berkshire Hathaway, Pershing Square or get involved on the Value Investors Club.

  • Bitcoin is obsolete and should not be used (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xack ( 5304745 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2026 @07:14AM (#66348234)
    There are plenty of useful alternative payment systems now making its use as currency redundant and Bitcoin was obsolete from day one because anyone can irreversibly steal your money if your private key gets leaked (of which it is very easy with AI-found security flaws in operating systems, see Coldcard and MTGox). You can't even get "rich" with Bitcoin anymore as all the "cheap" coins have been cashed out it lost in a landfill.

    The only reason Bitcoin still exists is because people don't take real economics classes anymore and think they can generate "value" by "hodling". Same goes for all those stupid Pokemon cards where low wage retail workers get harassed by scalpers. Slashdot should have a topic ban on Bitcoin so we don't keep having the same "number go up" posts.

    • Re:Bitcoin is obsolete and should not be used (Score:5, Insightful)

      by martin-boundary ( 547041 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2026 @07:18AM (#66348238)
      Bitcoin is also a great way for Trump to benefit.... and for Iran to do commerce outside the dollar system.
    • I wouldn't say it was obsolete from day one, but pointless from day one. There weren't any problems that it solved, nothing new it added (other than itself), and its stated purpose was ridiculous and doomed.
      • Well, scratch that, it did add something. The blockchain it's built on is a useful tracking mechanism. And that seems to be what the stock market wants to use it for - making and tracking stock transactions.

        Why that would boost the value of bitcoin does not make much sense to me.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          and yet 15 years on what are the prominent blockchain based tools being used in professional industry?

        • Re:Bitcoin is obsolete and should not be used (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2026 @10:47AM (#66348580)

          It didn't. Hash trees are nearly 50 years old. Bitcoin's novelty was proposing a 1) a practical proof of work system based on computing hashes 2) a distributed transaction system based on it where the users would perform the processing.

          The proof of work system has proven to be enormously expensive and Bitcoin processing was quickly taken over by large organizations so it failed to achieve (2) as well.

          The SEC thing the story is about has nothing to do with Bitcoin. It uses "smart contracts" which is an Etherium thing. Etherium notably started with a different proof of work algorithm to try and fix the problems with Bitcoin's, then dropped proof of work entirely.

          • I accept the correction. I don't care enough about that scene to bother with the differences between them and just lump them all together in my mind.

            I don't understand why this would boost Bitcoin, for the reason you mentioned - it has nothing to do with this. The SEC is talking about stock trades using similar tech. That shouldn't impact Bitcoin prices at all.

            Which tells you something about that market. People investing in it don't seem to have any better understanding of it than I care to keep.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              I don't understand why this would boost Bitcoin

              I suspect the reason is exactly the one you mentioned: "[you don't] bother with the differences between them and just lump them all together in [your] mind."

              Someone says "blockchain" and people think Bitcoin. In truth, the concept of a "blockchain" existed long before Bitcoin and today when someone says it they almost certainly don't mean anything much like Bitcoin's particular implementation, much less Bitcoin itself.

          • A bitcoin hash has nothing to do with a hashtree.
            And a ledger and/or blockchain: neither.

            Blockchain means: every bitcoin (or fraction there of) can be looked at, and traced back over all previous owners back to the original creator/owner.

              • And that is not a "hashtree". So, what is your point again?

                Everyone to stupid to give a comment to a link he links?

                • And that is not a "hashtree".

                  I see you failed to read the heading of the linked page.

                  Everyone to stupid to give a comment to a link he links?

                  Tell us more about your illiteracy. Here, try and read this [reddit.com] instead if you can.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              Uh huh. Sure it doesn't.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              Your weird unfounded claim isn't really worthy of much of a reply. But for any innocent who's reading and is tempted by the bitcoin bro nonsense, here's Satoshi's whitepaper:

              https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pd... [bitcoin.org]

              Quoting:

              transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5],

              There's a diagram too. Those references are:

              [7] R.C. Merkle, "Protocols for public key cryptosystems," In Proc. 1980 Symposium on Security and
              Privacy, IEEE Computer Society, pages 122-133, April 1980.

              [2] H. Massias, X.S. Avila, and J.-J. Quisquat

              • And? Again you forgot to make a point.

                A Merkle Tree is not a tree of hashes. Unless you want to say, hashkeys are sorted in a Merkle Tree as a set of hashes.

                Why not ... might make sense for what ever purpose it is done.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                  A Merkle Tree is not a tree of hashes. Unless you want to say, hashkeys are sorted in a Merkle Tree as a set of hashes.

                  I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.

                  I did reread your original message and, minus the bullshit at the beginning, if your point is that Bitcoin's transaction tracking is novel, it's not. It was proposed by Hal Finney in 2004. Satoshi neglects to reference it.

                  I was also incorrect. Bitcoin didn't come up with the hash based proof of work concept either. That's reference 6.

                  • I did not say that transaction tracking is novel.

                    On the other hand: I have no idea what you're trying to say with this. I do not remember :P

        • Hash trees and digital signing and encryption have been around long before blockchain and used to sign and track transactions on the stock market for decades. blockchain doesn't really add anything much to that.

      • The idea of a distributed ledger that can be done worldwide without any government involvement has value by itself.

        The idea that you can buy, hold, and sell bitcoin somewhat anonymously* has value by itself.

        * obviously trades involving the same wallet are tied together, and there are off-chain methods of tying a wallet to a real person, but with good "opsec" using bitcoin can be about as anonymous as using paper/coin currency or lumps of shiny metal or uncut jewels

        • Well, I like how quickly you acknowledge that your second point is not only redundant, but worse than the pre-existing alternatives.

          Your first point is actually wrong. Not only is it not intrinsically valuable, it's inherently bad. In the long run, only criminals benefit from it. Governments MUST be responsible for the nation's wealth. They MUST at least have visibility into the net flow of capital in and out of the country. This is necessary because governments are responsible for fiscal, monetary,

          • Bitcoin was created partially because the laws surrounding money assumed it was an option not a necessity.
            The idea of cryptocurrencies was that possession should be in a sense above local governments.
            The statistics on illicit use of cryptocurrency and people's appetite for a secure store of value seem to be demonstrating that this aspect of crypto is valid.

        • The idea of a distributed ledger that can be done worldwide without any government involvement has value by itself.

          Indeed. It allows people to get around all those pesky anti-money laundering legislations and international sanctions. Otherwise it provides nothing of value to anyone who has ever needed to transfer money, something that is flung around in the billions across national borders daily without issue and without bitcoin.

          The idea that you can buy, hold, and sell bitcoin somewhat anonymously* has value by itself.

          If you want to buy, hold and sell something, then you're far better off doing it using traditional stocks issued in paper format. If anonymity is your goal, announcing your trades and holdings o

    • You cited Mtgox... wasn't that like... a decade ago? lmao

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MikeS2k ( 589190 )

      Also as an actual digital currency BTC is shite. A transfer of BTC will take 45 minutes on average, for 1 confirmation, and you need to pay TX fees for this to happen. At one point you had to pay $2 - $5 to guarantee you'd be in that 1st confirm window, otherwise you could be waiting literally days for your tx to confirm on the blockchain.
      The BTC bros first said "use Lightning network braah" yet I've never actually seen the Lightning network used ever. Then the BTC bros said "braah you are trying to use

  • The Environment (Score:3)

    by BitterEpic ( 10503015 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2026 @07:16AM (#66348236) Homepage

    Hear me out. When we get this kind of reporting on Bitcoin it leads to the the capitalist tragedy of the commons.

    For the energy costs of bitcoin, it would be great to get updates on how much it is shifting us over the 1.5C target for global warming. Actual numbers. Something concrete we can tell our children... like where they are going to need to move in 20 years.

    Now of course it is possible to fudge this kind of information. For example, if all bitcoin mining is moved to solar, it takes away solar for other energy uses. Y'know, for things like AI.

    • Bitcoin is not having a notable impact on the environment. The overall consumption is barely enough to make a dent even if it were all mined using coal. Unless you think countries like Uruguay are the problem with climate change, then you shouldn't be pointing a finger at Bitcoin.

    • BTC mining moved to renewables a long time ago.

      Tell me though, how much CO2 do all the diesel burning cash trucks (armored cars etc) produce?
    • Wait... did you think that "the tragedy of the commons" was a problem of Capitalism? It's a human nature problem that was already a well-known issue in Aristotle's time. You could even say it was a civilization problem, as it isn't faced by nomadic hunter-gatherers. As soon as a people settle down and create shared spaces, the problem arises.

      • Re:The Environment (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2026 @10:53AM (#66348594)

        it isn't faced by nomadic hunter-gatherers

        Hunter-gatherers are generally nomadic because of the tragedy of the commons. They show up, hunt and gather out the area they're in with no motivation to manage it sustainably, then move elsewhere to do the same thing again. Nomads don't "face" tragedy of the commons, they pack up and leave. It becomes a problem that needs to be solved for civilizations because they give up that option.

        • Well, they are nomadic for the same reason the animals they follow are. Do antelope face the tragedy of the commons? No, they're animals. They graze and move. Their predators, like us, follow. The land renews after the antelope and hunters have moved on, bolstered by manure, and the cycle continues.

          It is only when humans settle and establish shared resources that the tragedy begins and must be addressed.

          So, I think we're largely disagreeing about definitions. I say nomads can't have commons; tho

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            Do antelope face the tragedy of the commons?

            Absolutely they do. Nomadic animals, humans included, use up resources faster then they're replenished. They move because if they don't they'll die. The tragedy of the commons is the natural state of the simplest game theory. It's overcome by the ability to cooperate, which a few species have evolved, and a few more have refined into complex societies, i.e. civilization.

        • Hunter-gatherers are generally nomadic because of the tragedy of the commons. They show up, hunt and gather out the area they're in with no motivation to manage it sustainably

          Whether hunt/gathering can be sustainable depends entirely on circumstances and nothing else. It also develops desirable cultivars as humans eat the desirable plants and then shit them out again, and also distribute seeds in other ways, just like any other animal except we're better at it. They are more likely to eat the developing plants necessary to have something to eat next year. The hunters also hunted mostly the animals competing with them for the same food. Nomadic peoples could move about psuedorand

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            Whether hunt/gathering can be sustainable depends entirely on circumstances

            Uh, yes?

            Nomadic peoples could move about psuedorandomly due to chance, or move in circles with purpose.

            Also yes? Are you sure you're replying to the right post?

  • Good new for bitcoin? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tx ( 96709 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2026 @07:33AM (#66348254) Journal

    I'm surprised the tokenized stocks thing is seen as good news for Bitcoin - that stuff will not be happening on the Bitcoin chain, so I'd have thought it would be more like good news for Bitcoin's competitors, smart contract platforms like Ethereum and Solana? Maybe it's being seen as good news for crypto as a whole, I guess.

    • Bitcoin booms and crashes on vibes and market manipulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      The big crypto bubble will pop eventually... and if it's allowed to get be commingled into other financial institutions it's going to hurt all of us.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      Have to keep in mind that to a lot of folks it's almost 'bitcoin === cryptocurrency', where anything cryptocurrency must be bitcoin related. Not just this field, but investing in general.

      Companies have gotten big boosts just by having a similar symbol to something in the news that they had nothing to do with.

  • President Donald Trump reported over $1.4 billion in income from cryptocurrency in just the FIRST YEAR of his second term.

    So when congress doesn't bow down to the orange menace..... he just tells his appointed toadies to fuck up our economy even more with speculation. All to make him more cash.

    This country is so fucked.
    • Almost all of that money came from overseas players to buy influence with him. It's a legal avenue for purchasing influence with the US president. A suitcase of cash is "bribery". But, a middle eastern leader can "invest" 500 million USD in TrumpCoin, which was designed to instantly crater in value, directly putting the cash into the pockets of Trump, his family, and his friend. Completely legal.

      It amazes me that US society has decided to tolerate this sort of behavior. We chose this consciously and wit

      • Re:This just in - Trump Grifts some more (Score:5, Interesting)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday September 23, 2026 @11:13AM (#66348624) Homepage Journal

        Most people didn't choose that part of this consciously, because they didn't understand it, and if they did, they didn't believe it.

        What I don't get is how those people can think they're smart when the counterevidence is so persistent.

  • For me, the biggest news is the possibility of a tokenized stock exchange. I have no interest at all in cryptocurrency, but I would like more transparency and control over my assets which could potentially be done if they were tokenized. If it was designed securely, it could prevent shadow transactions and would expose frontrunning. Also, I have a lot less trust in stock exchanges in the past couple of decades due to all of their fuckery, so I wouldn't mind holding onto the assets directly after they're
  • * The Illusion of Control: Just like a hustler shuffling cards faster than the eye can track, complex tokenomics, decentralized buzzwords, and shifting regulatory frameworks can make it nearly impossible for everyday participants to track where the actual value (or risk) resides.

    * The Ever-Expanding Deck: Instead of three simple cards, the market constantly introduces new layers: yield farming, meme coins, alternative layer-1s, and now tokenized equities. Multiplying the ways a player can get distracted

  • use it to vote? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SinisterEVIL ( 2661381 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2026 @02:11PM (#66348850)
    How come no one ever talks about using it as a voting system instead of just "money". Every candidate gets a wallet. every citizen cast a vote by sending a fraction of a token to the candidate. Its anonymous but can also be openly audited by literally anyone. Oh also, It's unhackable......
    • I would refrain from calling it "unhackable". How do you prevent stolen credentials? And how would you prevent double-voting? You can ignore second votes, but they can still flood the blockchain and make it difficult to audit. Wouldn't it be vulnerable to DDOS attacks?

    • How come no one ever talks about using it as a voting system instead of just "money". Every candidate gets a wallet. every citizen cast a vote by sending a fraction of a token to the candidate. Its anonymous but can also be openly audited by literally anyone.

      Because it's not a problem that needs solving? Election fraud is so insignificant it's never impacted an election in the USA. Why throw out a system that works for something that has some very serious flaws:

      Oh also, It's unhackable......

      It's anything but. Anyone with majority control on the chain can modify the ledger. Unless you're going to get the weight and might of the entire world to secure your ledger it wouldn't take much for a major international power to spin up a mighty mining system and start tampering with it.

      • Electoral fraud is not a problem today, but it was not always so. Stuffing ballot boxes was a common practice in many areas in the past. In Roane County where I grew up in E TN, this was an issue up until 1970. It was halted only because a group of good government advocates literally stood over the boxes from the time the boxes were distributed to precincts until the votes were counted. That group consisted of voters across the political spectrum from George Wallace supporters to George McGovern supporters.

  • Bitcoin sails close to that fine line between investment and gambling.

  • Who in government has the connections to reap the rewards?

    Someone stands to make money from this. It's not most people.
  • BUY BUY BUY!!? It's going to 17 million because uhm this one guy's stock to flow model and laser eyes and hype BS. Oh and did you hear that stable coins are gonna be backed by US treasuries?! So obviously that means something for BTC value rising...or does it?

Slashdot Top Deals

A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms. -- George Wald

Close