On Oct. 10, 2025, a flash crash rocked the crypto market. Within hours, over $19 billion in leveraged positions were liquidated as panic selling hit thin order books. Bitcoin plunged 14% intraday (from an all-time high above $126,000 on Oct. 6 to about $107,000). Ether fell over 25% from its peak. Many altcoins fared far worse: some lost over half their value in minutes before partial rebounds.
Not all crypto assets were hit equally. A handful of tokens emerged as shock absorbers, suffering remarkably small drawdowns or quickly recovering their losses. Identifying these resilient assets provides insight into what factors protected them – and whether those strengths will last. With data as of Oct. 22, 2025, 12:00 UTC, this report ranks the Top 10 crypto assets (excluding stablecoins) that held up best since the Oct. 10 crash, and analyzes why they withstood the onslaught.
The most resilient assets span categories from “blue-chip” Bitcoin to niche privacy coins. Common threads include strong organic demand, limited leverage, and supportive token economics. For example, Tron (TRX) barely dipped ~11% at the height of panic, buoyed by sticky long-term holders.
Privacy coin Monero (XMR) is actually up about 6% over the past 30 days, suggesting its uncorrelated use-case attracted steadier hands. Zcash (ZEC) initially plunged nearly 45% but fully recovered within 24 hours and even hit new highs, driven by a rush into privacy assets amid surveillance fears. These “shock absorber” tokens generally share lower exposure to speculative excess, deep liquidity or committed holders, and in some cases positive catalysts (like an ETF listing or protocol revenues) that kicked in even as the broader market faltered.
Below we analyze and outline base-, bull-, and bear-case scenarios for each resilient asset. While these names proved their mettle in October’s crunch, they face their own risks – from upcoming token unlocks to regulatory shifts. We also flag early warning metrics (like funding rate flips or on-chain outflows) that could signal if an asset’s resilience is cracking. In a market still digesting the shock, understanding why these tokens stood firm can help investors, builders, and analysts position for what’s next in Q4 2025.
How We Measured “Resilience”
We define the crash period as Oct. 10, 2025 (00:00 UTC) through Oct. 22, 2025, capturing the initial shock and the nearly two weeks of market action since. The analysis starts from Oct. 10’s opening prices (or volume-weighted average price, where available) and considers the maximum drawdown each asset experienced from that point through its local trough, as well as the subsequent recovery up to Oct. 22.
We considered crypto assets in the top 50 by market capitalization (as of early October) across Layer-1 networks, Layer-2 networks, DeFi “blue chips,” infrastructure tokens, and major application tokens. We excluded stablecoins (whose prices are pegged) and very illiquid micro-caps. To ensure sufficient liquidity and trading activity, we required roughly $500 million+ market cap and ≥$10 million in 24h spot volume on reputable exchanges during the period. All assets on our final list trade on at least two major venues, reducing the chance that a “resilient” price was just an artifact of illiquidity.
We ranked assets by percent drawdown from Oct. 10 to their period low. The smaller the peak-to-trough decline, the higher the resilience ranking. We also note how quickly each asset reached its low and how much (if at all) it has recovered as of Oct. 22. For context, we calculate each asset’s return from Oct. 10’s close to Oct. 22. For example, if an asset closed Oct. 10 at $100 and dropped to $70 at its worst, that’s a –30% max drawdown; if it’s back to $90 now, it’s down only –10% from Oct. 10.
Secondary metrics: To understand why certain coins held up, we examined:
• Relative performance vs. Bitcoin and the market: We looked at each asset’s beta to Bitcoin (i.e. did it fall more or less than BTC during the crash?) and if its BTC pair strengthened or weakened. For instance, Tron’s TRX/BTC pair rose on Oct. 11 even as most alts’ BTC pairs crumbled – a sign of relative strength.
• Volatility and Sharpe ratio: We note 30-day realized volatility to see if low-vol coins fared better. Many resilient tokens had surprisingly low volatility during and after the crash (Tron’s volatility “tightly compressed” again by Oct. 14). We qualitatively discuss risk-adjusted performance where relevant.
• Liquidity and trading flows: Using order book depth data and volume, we gauge if deep liquidity buffered some prices. We also consider derivatives positioning – e.g. did perpetual swap funding rates or open interest shifts indicate shorts piling in or shorts getting wiped out? A large short overhang can worsen a crash via liquidations, whereas balanced positioning can soften the blow.
• On-chain activity: We incorporate metrics like exchange netflows, large holder behavior, active addresses, and staking participation. Tokens with strong on-chain fundamentals and committed communities (e.g. high staking ratios, or long-term holders not rushing to exchanges) tended to fall less. For example, Tron’s on-chain data showed no mass exodus by old holders during the crash.
• Tokenomics and supply dynamics: We review each token’s circulating supply, vesting/unlock schedules, and any treasury or buyback programs that could support price. Several resilient assets benefited from constricted supply: e.g. Maker’s ongoing buy-and-burn of MKR tokens and a high savings rate for DAI reduced selling pressure. Exchange tokens like BNB have periodic burns that reduce float, and Bitfinex’s LEO has a treasury buyback model – factors that can create a price floor.
• Narrative and catalyst factors: Finally, we note any idiosyncratic catalysts that insulated the asset. These include network upgrades, enterprise partnerships, regulatory clarity, or just timing luck. For instance, XRP had major ETF filings and institutional inflows in mid-October, which helped it attract dip-buyers. Zcash rode a wave of privacy coin enthusiasm amid geopolitical surveillance concerns. Such factors gave certain coins a fundamental bid even as the broader market panicked.
Price and volume data were cross-verified using CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap aggregated feeds. Drawdowns and returns were calculated based on daily OHLC data and intraday charts for Oct. 10–11. On-chain and derivatives insights came from Glassnode, CryptoQuant, and Kaiko where cited (e.g. exchange flows, funding rates), and news catalysts were sourced from reputable outlets like Reuters, CoinDesk, Bloomberg, and official project announcements (all linked accordingly).
This analysis focuses on spot market behavior; while we include some derivatives context, there may be off-exchange or OTC activity not captured. Smaller exchange tokens (even if in top 50) pose a caveat: if they trade mostly on one venue, their “resilience” might reflect isolation rather than broad strength. We mitigated this by requiring multiple listings, but e.g. LEO (Bitfinex’s token) showed little volatility partly because it’s primarily traded on one platform under a controlled burn program.
Survivorship bias is another concern – we naturally highlight those that held up; many others that crashed harder could have different, instructive weaknesses (we touch on these in comparison). All percentage moves are approximate; different data sources can vary slightly, though we cite reliable figures from official or widely used sources where possible. Finally, while we identify correlations (e.g. high staking correlating with resilience), we caution that correlation ≠ causation; each asset’s story has unique elements.
Market Backdrop Since Oct. 10, 2025
Before diving into the leaderboard, it’s crucial to understand the chaotic backdrop of mid-October 2025. The flash crash was triggered not by a crypto-native failure, but by macro and policy shocks that hit an over-leveraged market. Late on Friday, Oct. 10, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 100% tariff on Chinese imports and new export controls on “critical software”. This surprise escalation in the U.S.–China trade war sent risk assets reeling worldwide.
With traditional markets closed (Oct. 10 was after equity market hours), many investors rushed to dump crypto holdings as a proxy for risk, and piled into safe havens like U.S. Treasuries and gold. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq had their worst drop since spring, but crypto’s fall was far steeper – highlighting crypto’s sensitivity to macro shocks when leverage is high.
Record liquidations: As the tariff news hit, highly leveraged crypto positions started unwinding en masse. Within a 24-hour span, over $19–20 billion in crypto derivatives positions were liquidated, the largest one-day wipeout in the industry’s history. For context, this was 9× larger than the Feb. 2025 mini-crash and 19× larger than the liquidation volume on “Black Thursday” March 2020 or during the FTX collapse in Nov. 2022.
The cascade was exacerbated by thin order books – as prices fell, liquidity providers pulled bids, and some exchanges even hit circuit-breaker thresholds. Market-makers later noted that auto-deleveraging on some platforms forced them to reduce exposure at the worst moment, creating a feedback loop of falling liquidity.
Price carnage: Bitcoin (BTC), which had just notched a new all-time high above $126K on Oct. 6, plunged to about $104,800 at the lows on Oct. 10–11. That ~14-15% intraday drop was actually relatively mild compared to most altcoins. Ether (ETH) dropped from roughly $4,800 toward ~$3,436–3,500 at its trough – a ~25% fall from its recent high, or ~12% on that day per some reports. The total crypto market cap shed on the order of half a trillion dollars at the depths, roughly an 11%+ decline in a matter of hours.
It was in the “riskier corners” where the damage was most extreme. Highly speculative and illiquid altcoins saw flash crashes reminiscent of past eras’ worst moments. For example: Dogecoin (DOGE) — a memecoin bellwether — plunged over 50% at one point (from ~$0.22 to ~$0.11) before stabilizing around $0.19. Avalanche (AVAX) at one stage was down 70% from its recent levels, and reports surfaced of Toncoin (TON) briefly trading ~80% lower on some venues during the peak frenzy (a wick from near $2 to ~$0.50). Even relatively established large-caps weren’t spared: Solana (SOL) saw an intraday collapse of over 40% according to some accounts, and Stellar (XLM) flash-crashed ~60% to around $0.16 before bouncing. In short, Oct. 10 was a true stress test, separating assets by how they behaved when bid liquidity vanished.
Why Bitcoin bounced (a bit): By the next day (Oct. 11), Bitcoin and a few majors mounted a partial recovery, thanks in part to reassuring news. Over that weekend, President Trump softened his stance, suggesting “it will all be fine” and indicating the U.S. didn’t actually want to harm China. China, for its part, did not announce any new countermeasures immediately. This cooling of rhetoric helped global sentiment.
Additionally, crypto-specific factors helped Bitcoin rebound faster than most: on-chain analysts noted BTC investor flows remained strong despite the chaos. In fact, prominent analyst Willy Woo pointed out that Bitcoin’s network flows (coins moving to long-term investors, continued hodling) “held up well” and likely enabled BTC to fare better than expected given the stock market plunge. There’s evidence that capital rotated from altcoins into Bitcoin during and after the crash, rather than leaving crypto entirely. This rotation is typical in a flight to quality: when volatility strikes, many traders flee smaller alts for the relative safety of BTC (and to a lesser extent ETH) – which can cushion Bitcoin’s downside.
Derivatives reset and stablecoin flows: The crash also caused a significant leverage reset across the market. Perpetual futures funding rates went deeply negative for BTC and ETH as panic shorting and hedging spiked on Oct. 10–13. Options markets saw a rush for protective puts – for instance, traders snapped up BTC puts with $95K strikes expiring end-of-month, and ETH puts at $3,600 strikes. Implied volatility spiked to multi-month highs across expiries. By flushing out this leverage, the market arguably set a cleaner slate for recovery; as one analyst put it, “the good news is this crash cleaned out excessive leverage and reset risk in the system, for now”.
Another notable flow: Stablecoins briefly wobbled but then proved their utility. Immediately during the sell-off, some traders even fled into certain fiat-backed stablecoins (essentially treating USDC/USDT as safe havens). There was a momentary depeg scare with a lesser-known yield-bearing stablecoin (USDe) as liquidity got tight, but major stablecoins like USDT and USDC held their pegs through the storm. In the aftermath, stablecoin supply flows give a macro clue: Tether’s USDT dominance inched up as risk capital rotated out of alts into cash equivalents, and overall stablecoin trading volumes hit year-to-date highs as traders reallocated. Stablecoins have also been cited as a medium-term stabilizer: Galaxy Digital’s research head noted that the growing role of stablecoins as payment rails and liquidity anchors helps support the ecosystem even when prices swing.
Regulatory and policy rumblings: It didn’t help sentiment that this crash occurred amid a U.S. government shutdown (led by the Trump administration) that effectively paused the SEC and CFTC. That sparked concerns about reduced oversight during a market crisis. Rep. Maxine Waters highlighted that with regulators furloughed, potential market manipulation or insider trading around the tariff news might go unchecked. (There were indeed suspicious on-chain signs, such as an address that bet $150M against BTC right before the crash and profited massively).
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, EU and Asian regulators were quiet on crypto during this period, but the general risk-off tone globally meant less appetite for speculative assets. One brighter spot: amid the wreckage, the narrative of upcoming Bitcoin ETFs and tokenization of real-world assets regained traction in late October, which may have helped put a floor under Bitcoin and certain “quality” altcoins. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust, for example, saw a brief streak of inflows resume after the crash as dip-buyers emerged. Overall, the policy backdrop remains a double-edged sword: the crash underscored crypto’s vulnerability to macro shocks, but it also intensified calls for risk management and clearer regulation to integrate crypto into traditional finance more safely.
In sum, the Oct. 10 event was a perfect storm of macro panic meeting structural crypto fragility (high leverage + low liquidity). Yet, in the wreckage, some assets demonstrated notable resilience. Let’s turn to the leaderboard of those top survivors and dissect why they weathered the storm.
The Leaderboard: Top 10 Crypto Assets That Fell the Least
1. Tron (TRX): Staking Stronghold in a Storm
What it is: Tron is a Layer-1 blockchain platform focused on high-throughput transaction processing, often used for stablecoin transfers and DeFi applications. Its native token TRX powers transactions and staking on the network. Tron has a delegated proof-of-stake system with a high staking participation (over 50% of circulating TRX is locked in staking). It’s known for its fast, low-fee transactions and is the primary chain for issuing Tether (USDT) stablecoins outside Ethereum, which gives TRX consistent demand for transaction fees.
Crash performance: Tron was the single best-performing major asset during the Oct. 10 crash. It dropped only about 10–11% at its worst point, briefly wicking to around $0.30, and largely held the $0.30 level throughout the panic. By comparison, most peers were down 20–40% in that window. Remarkably, Tron’s TRX/BTC trading pair strengthened as the crash unfolded: on Oct. 11, TRX/BTC was up ~2.1%, meaning Tron gained value relative to Bitcoin while nearly all other altcoins lost ground against BTC. This rare outperformance signaled that Tron was a safe harbor for some investors amid the turmoil. As of Oct. 22, TRX trades around $0.33, actually above its pre-crash price of ~$0.32, translating to only a mid-single-digit percentage net change since Oct. 10.
Why it held up:
• High Staking & Low Sell Pressure: Over half of TRX supply is staked in Tron’s consensus (earning rewards), which means a relatively smaller liquid float was available for panicked selling. During the crash, on-chain data showed no mass exodus by long-term TRX holders – the Coin Days Destroyed metric stayed low. In other words, the wallets that have held TRX for a long time did not suddenly rush to exchanges en masse. This implies most selling was from short-term traders, while the committed community “hodled” through the volatility, cushioning the price.
• Limited Leverage Exposure: TRX is less commonly used in high-leverage trading compared to coins like ETH or XRP. Fewer TRX futures and margin positions meant fewer forced liquidations driving it down. An analysis noted that tokens not heavily listed on major derivative exchanges didn’t crash as hard. Tron, while listed on major exchanges, doesn’t have the same speculative fervor around it in Western markets, which ironically helped – there weren’t many shorts to trigger or over-levered longs to liquidate. Its trading volume is also spread across many Asian exchanges and DEXs, potentially avoiding a single point of failure.
• Stablecoin Demand on Tron: Tron is the backbone for a huge amount of USDT (Tether) stablecoin transactions (Tron’s low fees make it popular for moving USDT). During the panic, as people sold crypto, many moved into USDT – and a lot of that USDT rode on Tron’s network. This means Tron’s network continued to see usage (and TRX fees) even as prices fell. Additionally, market makers transacting USDT may keep TRX on hand to pay fees, creating a natural baseline demand. Tron’s founder Justin Sun claimed that “Tron is the Ark during the flood” – promotional, but partially evidenced by USDT-Tron transfers remaining smooth through the chaos.
• No Major Deleveraging on Tron DApps: Tron’s DeFi ecosystem (e.g. lending platform JustLend) is relatively small compared to Ethereum’s, and it didn’t suffer a cascade of liquidations. This contrasts with some other chains where DeFi positions got liquidated and added sell pressure. Tron’s on-chain lending markets had conservative parameters, and we didn’t hear of any protocol failures on Tron during the crash. No news was good news – Tron didn’t become a headline for the wrong reasons.
Risks and forward-looking: Tron’s resilience in this crash highlights its strength as a utility-driven chain with loyal holders. However, there are risks. Centralization and governance remain concerns; a handful of “Super Representatives” control validation, and Tron’s reputation is closely tied to Justin Sun’s stewardship, which carries execution and regulatory risks. If sentiment in Asia (Tron’s primary user base) shifts or if a competing network outcompetes Tron for Tether transfers, TRX could lose a key demand driver. Additionally, Tron’s stablecoin ecosystem includes an algorithmic stablecoin (USDD) which had a minor depeg in 2022 – any instability there could hurt trust.
What’s next: In a continued choppy or down market, Tron may continue to act as a relatively stable “yield and utility” play. Its staking yields (currently ~4-5%) and ongoing usage for USDT could make TRX a quasi-“crypto bond” in investors’ eyes – not risk-free, but lower beta. If the market turns bullish, Tron might lag high-beta DeFi or AI tokens, but it proved it can outperform in a crunch. Keep an eye on Tron’s stablecoin flow metrics (USDT-Tron supply, transaction counts) – if usage stays high or grows, that supports TRX’s base case.
Also watch for any regulatory news around Tether or Tron; thus far, Tron has largely stayed out of Western regulators’ crosshairs, but any issue there could impact it. In the near term, the key level is the ~$0.30 support it held during the crash – as long as TRX stays above that in future market dips, it signals ongoing strength. A break below could indicate something has fundamentally changed (e.g. if stakers start exiting). For now, Tron’s Oct. 10 performance has solidified its image as a comparatively stable asset in a volatile cryptosphere.
2. Bitcoin (BTC): Institutional Anchor Amid Leverage Chaos
What it is: Bitcoin hardly needs an introduction – it’s the original cryptocurrency, often dubbed “digital gold.” With the largest market cap in crypto, Bitcoin is held by a wide array of participants from retail holders to hedge funds to corporate treasuries. Its fixed 21 million supply and decentralized network give it a unique store-of-value appeal. Importantly, Bitcoin sets the tone in crypto markets; it’s the asset most likely to benefit from flights to quality when investors get scared of altcoin risk.
Crash performance: During the Oct. 10 flash crash, Bitcoin fell roughly 14–15% at the lows, dropping from around $122,000 on Oct. 9 to about $104,800 at the nadir on Oct. 10. That intraday plunge was sharp, but notably shallower than almost every altcoin. By the end of that volatile day, BTC had already bounced back above $115,000, cutting its loss to around 8% for the day. Over the subsequent week, Bitcoin continued to recover as leveraged sellers cleared out. As of Oct. 22, BTC hovers around $108K–110K – still about 10% below its pre-crash peak, but up from the post-crash lows and relatively stable. In fact, Bitcoin’s dominance (its share of total crypto market cap) spiked to ~60% after the crash, the highest in months, reflecting that capital consolidated into BTC.
In terms of timing: Bitcoin’s worst moment was mid-afternoon UTC on Oct. 10, but it led the rebound. Within 24 hours, BTC had retraced roughly half of its drop. This resilience – falling less and recovering faster – is why BTC ranks high on the shock absorber list.
Why it held up:
• Deepest Liquidity: Bitcoin has by far the most robust markets – tens of billions in daily volume and relatively thick order books on major exchanges. During the crash, liquidity “dried up” everywhere to an extent, but BTC still had buyers stepping in near the $105K level, including possibly large institutional players who saw an opportunity. The sheer scale of Bitcoin (market cap over $2.2 trillion at the time) meant it would require an enormous wave of selling to push it down as far (in percentage terms) as smaller coins. Smaller alts simply didn’t have the buy walls; BTC did, albeit thinly at the worst point.
• Rotation from Altcoins: As mentioned, analysts observed a rotation of capital within crypto from alts into Bitcoin. Willy Woo noted that while Ethereum and Solana saw large outflows, Bitcoin’s investor flows “held up well”. Part of this might be algorithmic or reflexive: in a cascading sell-off, some traders actively sell altcoin positions for BTC (rather than for cash) as a safe harbor, anticipating BTC will rebound first or harder. Others might close alt longs and simultaneously close BTC shorts, effectively supporting BTC’s price. Correlation breakdown: We also saw Bitcoin decouple slightly from equities during the rebound – even as stock futures stayed weak post-tariff, BTC climbed off its lows on Oct. 11, suggesting crypto-native buyers were returning to BTC faster than they were to riskier tokens.
• Institutional & Fundamental Demand: The broader backdrop is that Bitcoin in late 2025 has significant institutional involvement (from ETFs in Europe to U.S. hedge funds). On the crash day, BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust reportedly still had net inflows, implying some investors “bought the dip” via ETF shares. Additionally, Bitcoin’s narrative as digital gold in a time of macro uncertainty (trade war fears, etc.) likely enticed allocators to either hold or add BTC. Gold itself hit record highs in October; Bitcoin, often seen as gold’s younger cousin, may have indirectly benefited from that sentiment once the initial shock passed. We can’t ignore that Bitcoin’s block subsidy halving is coming in April 2026 – historically a bullish driver – so longer-term focused investors may have viewed any sizable dip as a chance to accumulate.
• Clearing of Excess Leverage in BTC Futures: A technical but important factor: much of the $19B liquidations were actually concentrated in Bitcoin and Ethereum futures, because those are the most traded. While that initially drove the price down, it also meant by Oct. 11, a huge chunk of speculative long interest was wiped out. Exchanges like Binance and OKX saw their BTC open interest drop significantly as positions got liquidated or closed. Once that leverage was gone, there was less gravitational pull downward. BTC’s funding rates went deeply negative (meaning shorts were paying a premium to short), which typically is a contrarian buy signal – it implies an overshoot. Indeed, savvy traders often step in when BTC funding is heavily negative, to “fade” the panic. This dynamic helped BTC bottom out relatively quickly.
Risks and forward-looking: Bitcoin’s resilience doesn’t mean it’s invulnerable. In this crash it shone, but one risk to note is liquidity fragmentation – as crypto markets fragment across many exchanges and OTC venues, even Bitcoin can suffer air pockets (as seen). There’s also the macro factor: Bitcoin has been trading increasingly like a macro asset. If bond yields spike or equity markets tumble further, BTC could face renewed pressure. The flip side is also true: it might catch a bid from macro investors if, say, rate cuts loom or if geopolitical tensions spur interest in non-sovereign assets. A potential U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF approval (decisions expected in late 2025 or early 2026) is a huge upside catalyst – anticipation of that likely added to BTC’s support.
What’s next:
- Base case (continued chop): Bitcoin may range between ~$100K–$120K, consolidating its post-crash recovery. Its realized volatility could remain lower relative to altcoins (which is already happening – BTC’s 30-day volatility is lower than many top alts).
- Bear case (renewed downside): If another external shock hits or if the recent bounce fails, a key level to watch is the $100K psychological zone. A break below $100K on high volume could trigger another cascade of stop-loss selling or miner capitulation fears. However, October’s cleansing means there is likely less leverage now than pre-crash, so any retest might be more orderly. Also watch stablecoin exchange inflows – if we see a surge of USDC/USDT onto exchanges, it could mean big players are gearing up to buy BTC dips (a bullish sign) or, conversely, that holders are cashing out (bearish, depending on context).
- Bull case (recovery/uptober): Bitcoin leading a broader recovery would likely entail reclaiming the $125K area (the prior high). Traders will look for BTC dominance peaking and then stabilizing, which often precedes altcoin rallies. But given how scarred many are, BTC could maintain higher dominance for longer – it might continue to outperform riskier tokens for months. Keep an eye on on-chain holder metrics: as of now, long-term holder supply is near all-time highs (meaning hodlers are holding through volatility), which historically is bullish after flush-outs.
In summary, Bitcoin proved its role as the crypto market’s anchor during the Oct. 10 crash – falling hard, but hardly cratering, and bouncing back faster than the pack. Its ability to attract capital when everything else is bleeding is a big reason it remains at the core of any crypto portfolio. October 2025 reminded everyone: when in doubt, a lot of people “go to BTC” for safety, relatively speaking. That pattern is likely to persist, so long as Bitcoin continues to mature and integrate into the global financial system.
3. Monero (XMR): Steady Under the Radar – Privacy Pays Off
What it is: Monero is a leading privacy-focused cryptocurrency and blockchain. Unlike Bitcoin or Ethereum, Monero’s design emphasizes untraceable transactions – amounts, addresses, and transaction details are obscured through cryptographic techniques (ring signatures, stealth addresses, etc.). This makes XMR a favored coin for those who value financial privacy. It’s mined via proof-of-work (but ASIC-resistant, encouraging CPU/GPU mining), and it has a stable tail emission (minor inflation) to incentivize miners long-term. Importantly, Monero is not listed on several major exchanges due to regulatory concerns around privacy coins, which means it’s somewhat siloed liquidity-wise. Its community is very ideologically driven and long-term oriented.
Crash performance: Monero was exceptionally resilient during the Oct. 10 episode. While precise intraday data is trickier (since Monero isn’t on many derivative platforms, wicks vary by exchange), estimates show XMR fell on the order of ~15% or less at the lows – significantly milder than the market’s 30%+ ex-BTC drawdown. By the end of October, XMR was trading higher than it was pre-crash. Over the 30 days up to Oct. 22, Monero has gained roughly +6%. In other words, if you held Monero before the crash and checked your balance now, you’d be in the green – a remarkable result when most cryptos are still nursing losses. This puts Monero among the few assets to hit a higher high after the crash. Its price has been ranging in the low $300s (USD), and it briefly approached $340 in mid-October. Traders even have sights on whether Monero can push to $400+ in Q4 if momentum continues.
During the crash itself, Monero’s drop was likely cushioned by the fact that it doesn’t have large leveraged markets. For example, no Monero futures on Binance or CME to trigger mass liquidations. The trading that does happen is mostly spot on smaller exchanges or decentralized platforms. As a result, Monero’s order books didn’t see the same cascade of forced selling. Its recovery was relatively swift too – any dip was met by quiet buying, possibly by its dedicated user base.
Why it held up:
• Virtually No Leverage & Less Speculation: Monero’s absence from major exchanges might seem like a liquidity weakness, but in this context it was a strength. There was no Perpetual swap pile-on, no futures wipeout in XMR. When everything correlated in a momentum crash, XMR was somewhat insulated from arbitrage bots dragging it down in lockstep. This doesn’t mean it’s completely decoupled, but the selling was purely organic. And Monero holders historically are less flippant – many acquire XMR for its utility (private transactions) or ideological reasons. This investor base is stickier, meaning less likely to panic sell. Evidence: across recent months, Monero consistently had over 50% of its supply dormant for >1 year, indicating strong holding conviction.
• Privacy Demand in Turmoil: Interestingly, the narrative of financial privacy gained appeal amid geopolitical tensions. The trade war news and broader surveillance concerns put a spotlight on privacy tools. In October, there was a broader mini-rally in privacy coins: not just Monero, but also Dash and Zcash saw surges (405% monthly gain for ZEC, 110% for DASH). Monero, as the most established privacy coin, likely benefited from a rotation into this theme. Some traders possibly shifted funds into Monero thinking that if things get worse (financially or geopolitically), a privacy-preserving asset is a good place to park value. It’s analogous to people buying physical gold or cash – Monero is digital cash. Indeed, Monero set a 2025 high in active addresses in mid-October, suggesting usage spiked as folks moved into XMR.
• Continuous Miner Support & Tail Emission: Monero has a unique economic feature: it will never run out of block rewards (after main emission, it has 0.6 XMR per block forever). This tail emission means miners always have some incentive. During the crash, Bitcoin and others saw some miners briefly turn off machines as price plunged (less profitable). Monero’s network hash rate didn’t significantly dip; mining continued steadily. That in turn kept the network secure and running smoothly – there was no additional fear factor like “miners capitulating” which sometimes haunts Bitcoin or Ethereum in big downturns. In short, Monero’s network operations were boringly consistent during the chaos, helping confidence.
• Lack of Whales Dumping: Monero’s distribution is relatively decentralized (it was launched fairly with no premine/ICO). There aren’t known huge foundation treasuries or VC funds holding XMR who might dump in a crunch. That’s a stark contrast to many altcoins where large holders (e.g. foundations, early investors) sometimes rush to hedging or selling when things go south. Monero didn’t have, say, a Multicoin Capital or a foundation unloading a stash. The largest “entity” holdings are likely exchange wallets or maybe mining pools, none of whom behaved erratically. This removes a source of overhead supply under stress.
Risks and forward-looking: Monero’s very strength – privacy – is also its biggest risk in terms of adoption and regulation. It’s already delisted from some exchanges due to AML concerns. If more regulators crack down on privacy coins, liquidity could further constrict (e.g. if remaining exchanges like Kraken were forced to drop it). Another risk: network upgrades or competition. Monero has successfully upgraded (hard-forked) multiple times to improve privacy and resistance to specialized miners. It needs to continue this technical vigilance. If a weakness in its privacy were found, its value prop could be hurt. Alternatively, if another privacy tech (like Zcash’s upcoming UDAs or new coins like Dero) gained traction at Monero’s expense, it could slowly lose share.
That said, Monero has been resilient for years, and its community is among the most loyal. Its use in grey markets (while a controversial point) provides it a floor of real-world usage. For scenario analysis:
- In a bearish or volatile market, Monero could continue to quietly outperform. It has a low correlation profile historically. If trust in centralized systems erodes, people might increasingly diversify into Monero for some financial privacy, ironically making it a defensive asset.
- In a bull market, Monero might lag frothier DeFi or AI coins, but it tends to steadily appreciate and then have spurts when a catalyst hits (for instance, when exchanges in South Korea relisted privacy coins briefly, Monero popped). One potential catalyst on horizon: the increasing discussion of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and surveillance finance. Should that narrative heat up, Monero stands to gain mindshare as an alternative.
- Key levels: On the chart, XMR is eyeing the $340-$360 zone (recent local high). Clearing that could open a move to $400, which would be the highest since 2022. On the downside, support around $280 has held repeatedly. Keep an eye on trading volumes on decentralized exchanges like Haveno or local P2P markets – spikes there can signal organic buying that isn’t captured on the big exchange feeds.
In summary, Monero proved a bastion of stability in the Oct. 10 crash, validating the idea that a truly decentralized, utilitarian coin can act as a hedge against broader crypto turmoil. It’s not completely uncorrelated, but its unique qualities provided insulation. For those building crypto portfolios, Monero’s performance is a case study in the value of diversity: having some exposure to privacy coins added resilience during one of the wildest days in crypto history.
4. Binance Coin (BNB): Exchange Giant’s Token Weathers the Storm
What it is: BNB is the native token of Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange. Originally launched on Ethereum, it now operates primarily on the Binance Smart Chain (now called BNB Chain), which is a Layer-1 blockchain for smart contracts (with BNB as gas). BNB has multiple utility roles: paying discounted trading fees on Binance exchange, fueling transactions on BNB Chain, and participating in token sales and other programs in the Binance ecosystem. It’s effectively a hybrid exchange loyalty token and a smart contract platform coin. Binance also conducts quarterly BNB burns (token buybacks and burns) using a portion of their profits, which reduces supply over time.
Crash performance: BNB demonstrated notable resilience during the Oct. 10 crash, though not as extreme as Tron or Monero. At its lowest, BNB dipped to around $900–950 from roughly $1,200 pre-crash (estimates), roughly a 20-25% decline at the worst point. By Oct. 13, it had bounced back above $1,050. In fact, in the immediate aftermath, BNB was highlighted as one of the top rebounders – it was “last week’s top performer” among majors, according to market observers on Oct. 20. Over the week following the crash, BNB did give up some gains, ending about 12% down week-on-week by Oct. 20. As of Oct. 22, BNB trades around $1,070, still roughly 10% below its Oct. 9 level but firmly off the lows. It held its position as the #4 largest crypto by market cap throughout the turmoil.
Notably, BNB did not exhibit the kind of severe wicks that many altcoins did. It traded in a somewhat orderly fashion (relatively speaking) through the chaos – likely a function of Binance’s own platform managing the order flow and possibly intervening (there’s speculation Binance may have an interest in preventing extreme BNB volatility).
Why it held up:
• Strong Insider Support and Buybacks: Binance has a vested interest in BNB’s stability. The exchange’s quarterly burn mechanism essentially acts as a built-in buyer of BNB (using exchange profits). While the next burn schedule is fixed, the knowledge that Binance continually takes BNB out of circulation can create a psychological floor. It’s not confirmed whether Binance directly supported BNB’s price during the crash (through market-making), but it’s widely believed Binance monitors BNB markets closely. Unlike purely decentralized assets, BNB has a sort of implicit “central bank” in Binance. This can deter short-sellers, knowing that an entity with deep pockets stands behind the token. During the crash, there were no known large BNB liquidations, hinting that big holders (including Binance itself) didn’t panic sell.
• Utility & Demand for Fees: Even on Oct. 10, Binance exchange saw record trading volumes. Guess what traders need to use for fees (if they want discounts)? BNB. It’s plausible that as volatility surged, some market makers and high-frequency traders actually bought BNB (or at least didn’t sell their stash) to avail cheaper fees on the massive volume day. So trading activity spikes can create reflex demand for BNB. Additionally, BNB Chain itself didn’t suffer any major incidents, and usage continued (though it’s smaller compared to Ethereum or Tron’s volumes). This baseline utility might have kept some BNB off the market.
• Relatively Limited Circulating Supply: Over the years, Binance’s burns have significantly reduced BNB’s circulating supply (originally 200 million, now down to ~153 million and dropping). Many BNB are also locked in various Binance Earn products or held by investors who use BNB as a long-term stake in Binance’s ecosystem. This means during a crunch, the float that’s actively traded isn’t as huge as the market cap implies. Lower available supply can dampen the price impact of sell orders, assuming demand doesn’t evaporate.
• Market Perception as Blue Chip: BNB, by virtue of Binance’s dominance, is often seen as a quasi-blue-chip in crypto. It’s not as decentralized as BTC or ETH, but traders respect its size. In panics, some may rotate from fringe alts into something like BNB thinking it’s safer (given Binance’s clout). The correlation of BNB with overall market is high in uptrends, but interestingly in this down shock, BNB held up better than other platform coins (e.g., Solana or Cardano). That suggests people viewed BNB as one of the stronger horses to bet on in the altcoin stable, given Binance’s global influence and profitability.
Risks and forward-looking: BNB’s fate is tightly linked to Binance’s fate. This is a double-edged sword. On one hand, Binance’s continued profitability (they’re a cash machine in trading fees) and ecosystem growth bolster BNB’s value. On the other hand, regulatory actions against Binance (U.S. SEC and others have ongoing cases) loom as a tail risk. If Binance were forced out of key markets or faced operational issues, BNB could suffer severely. It’s essentially an equity-like token for Binance’s ecosystem without formal equity rights.
Additionally, BNB Chain faces competition from other Layer-1s and Layer-2s. Its transaction volumes have been moderate, and some metrics like total value locked in BNB Chain DeFi are down from peaks. If developers and users migrate away, one leg of BNB’s demand (as gas) weakens. So far, Binance has kept BNB relevant via new launches (e.g., Binance Launchpad tokens require holding BNB), but it’s an active effort.
What’s next: In a flat market scenario, BNB likely trades in tandem with general sentiment, perhaps with slightly lower volatility than smaller alts. Its beta to BTC is usually somewhat above 1 (meaning it moves a bit more than BTC), but in the crash it was lower – that might not always hold. For a bullish case: if crypto markets recover and Binance continues expanding (for example, Binance might get into new markets or products), BNB could climb back to pre-crash levels and beyond. The next milestone for BNB would be reclaiming $1,200 and then targeting its all-time high region (around $1,500+ from earlier in 2025). A catalyst could be Binance resolving some regulatory issues – if a settlement or positive development occurs, it would remove a discount weighing on BNB.
In a bearish case: if another shock hits or if Binance sees a wave of withdrawals (there was a period of fear in late 2024 around Binance solvency which BNB dipped on), then BNB could retest the sub-$900 area. Watch for unusual on-chain movements – large BNB transfers from Binance wallets to other exchanges could indicate selling or liquidity needs, which would be a red flag.
Also, keep an eye on the BNB burn announcements. While scheduled, they sometimes surprise with how large they are (since it’s tied to Binance’s trading volumes). A significantly large burn (meaning Binance had an extremely profitable quarter) could create positive sentiment. In summary, BNB proved itself as one of the more resilient top tokens in this crash, aided by its unique position as an exchange-backed asset. It underscores how in times of stress, ties to real business cash flows (trading fees) and a quasi-centralized support can stabilize a token. BNB’s resilience, however, ultimately rests on trust in Binance – something that the community will keep evaluating as the regulatory climate evolves.
5. Ethereum (ETH): The Ubiquitous Platform That Bent, Not Broke
What it is: Ethereum is the second-largest cryptocurrency and the leading smart contract platform that underpins much of decentralized finance (DeFi), NFTs, and other Web3 applications. ETH is the native token used for transaction fees (gas) and is also a staking asset now (since Ethereum’s switch to proof-of-stake in 2022). Ethereum has a vast ecosystem and is often considered the “reserve asset” of DeFi. Its performance is thus entwined with the broader crypto market’s health.
Crash performance: Ethereum did fall harder than Bitcoin on Oct. 10, which is expected given it’s higher beta, but it still outperformed most altcoins and held key levels. ETH’s price plunged from about $4,800 (near its all-time high around Oct. 6) down to roughly $3,436 at the low on Oct. 10, a drop of approximately 28% from peak, or ~12% on a daily basis as reported. Some sources noted an intraday low closer to $3,500, but Waters’ report cites ~21% decline which likely is peak-to-trough. After that initial jolt, Ethereum rebounded above $4,000 quite quickly – it was back to ~$4,254 by end of Oct. 11. As of Oct. 22, ETH trades around the $3,800–3,900 range, still about 20% below the early October high, but it has recuperated from the worst of the crash. Relative to BTC, ETH’s ratio dipped during the crash (meaning ETH underperformed BTC initially), but it stabilized afterward.
Ethereum’s DeFi ecosystem did experience some stress: on Oct. 10–11, many DeFi protocols saw large liquidations (e.g., over-collateralized loans on Aave, Maker vaults getting liquidated). However, the system overall functioned without major failures – a testament to its robustness. This prevented a worst-case downward spiral. By mid-October, ETH had one of its strongest daily rallies in months (a ~14% up day on Oct. 19) as confidence returned and possibly as whales bought the dip in DeFi assets, which indirectly supports ETH.
Why it (relatively) held up:
• High Utilization and Demand for Gas: Even during the sell-off, Ethereum’s network was extremely busy – partly because of the sell-off. People were scrambling to move funds, adjust positions, trade on DEXs, etc., all of which require ETH for gas fees. On Oct. 10, gas prices spiked with the surge in activity. That means arbitrageurs and traders needed to hold ETH to pay those fees, creating a baseline demand. Also, some DeFi protocols automatically buy ETH (to burn as fees or for liquidity) when volume spikes. The result: Ethereum’s utility provided some natural buy pressure even as speculators sold.
• Staking Mechanism Reduces Liquid Supply: With Ethereum’s move to proof-of-stake, a huge amount of ETH is locked up in staking (over 28 million ETH staked, roughly 20%+ of supply). While there is liquidity via liquid staking derivatives (LSDs like stETH), many ETH are effectively out of circulation or in long-term holders’ hands. During the crash, there was no evidence of a mass unstaking – withdrawals from the staking contract remained routine, not panic-driven. This implies a large portion of ETH supply was not on the market to be dumped, cushioning the blow. In fact, some stakers may have taken advantage of lower prices to spin up new validators or top-up collateral.
• Institutional and Developer Conviction: Ethereum has a broad base of stakeholders beyond day-traders: developers building on it, enterprises experimenting with it, and institutions (some via funds or futures) with longer-term theses. That collective conviction can create dip-buying. It’s telling that in the weeks after the crash, Ethereum-based ETFs saw fresh inflows (e.g., Ethereum futures ETFs had some upticks as per fund flow reports). Additionally, large DeFi players would buy ETH on discount to deploy into yield strategies. MakerDAO’s system, for instance, uses ETH as collateral; if ETH gets too cheap, arbitrageurs buy it to open DAI loans or to arbitrage liquidations.
• Reduced Leverage After Initial Flush: Like Bitcoin, Ethereum had a lot of leverage that got flushed out on Oct. 10. More than a few large ETH long positions were liquidated in that $4.8K to $3.5K drop. By Oct. 12, the perpetual futures funding for ETH had turned deeply negative then normalized, indicating the excess long leverage was gone. This cleared the path for a more organic price, less at risk of further cascade absent new shocks. Also, options data showed many traders had hedged with puts (e.g., $3,600 strike puts for mid-October) – once the crash happened, those hedges could be closed or took profit, removing constant sell pressure.
Risks and forward-looking: Ethereum wasn’t the top performer in this crash, but it didn’t disgrace itself either. Going forward, macro factors (like interest rates and tech stock correlation) will continue to impact ETH significantly, perhaps more than idiosyncratic factors. One looming event: Ethereum ETF approvals. The market is expecting spot ETH ETFs in the U.S. possibly in 2024. Anticipation of that could help ETH, whereas delays or rejections could hurt sentiment.
Another consideration is Ethereum’s fee market dynamics and Layer-2 adoption. If more activity migrates to Layer-2 networks (like Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) due to high fees, the direct demand for ETH as gas on mainnet might lessen. However, those L2s still ultimately settle in ETH on Layer-1, and many use ETH as their native gas too (Optimism and Arbitrum are moving towards paying fees in ETH). So Ethereum’s role remains pivotal.
From a resilience standpoint, one potential risk is DeFi contagion. In this crash, DeFi protocols handled things well; but if there were a failure (say an algorithmic stablecoin break or a major exploit) coinciding with market stress, ETH could face double pressure as both an asset and the collateral backbone.
For scenarios:
- Bull case: ETH reclaims $4,500 and beyond, potentially leading a new cycle of innovation (perhaps around tokenized real-world assets, given Galaxy’s note that tokenization is a tailwind). If Bitcoin ETF gets approved, an ETH spot ETF might follow, injecting fresh institutional capital. Under this, ETH likely outperforms BTC again in a bull run, as it often does.
- Bear case: If macro goes risk-off or if any ETH-specific event (like a delay in the next protocol upgrade) spooks investors, ETH could retest the post-crash lows around $3.5K. A break below that would be concerning, possibly targeting the low-$3K range where a lot of trading volume occurred earlier in 2025. Watch ETH/BTC ratio – continued weakness there might signal rotation out of ETH into BTC by big players, often a defensive allocation.
- Key indicators: monitor on-chain activity (a drop-off in transactions might indicate a cooling interest), staking deposit/withdrawal patterns (a surge in withdrawals could be bearish, though none seen yet), and any big movements of ETH from the Ethereum Foundation or ICO-era whales (large sells from those entities can dent price).
In sum, Ethereum remains the critical infrastructure of crypto. Its “resilience” in crashes is partly due to being indispensable – many participants can’t just ditch ETH entirely without leaving the ecosystem. That stickiness helped it bend but not break. While it didn’t top our list (due to that ~21% drawdown), it’s clear that Ethereum is still among the more robust assets when the market faces a reckoning.
6. Chainlink (LINK): Oracles Supported by Whales and Real Adoption
What it is: Chainlink is the leading decentralized oracle network. It provides real-world data (price feeds, event info, etc.) to blockchain smart contracts. The LINK token is used to pay node operators for providing data, and node operators often need to stake LINK as collateral. Chainlink has become critical infrastructure for DeFi – its price oracles secure tens of billions in value. Beyond price feeds, Chainlink is expanding into new services like randomness (VRF), automation, and cross-chain interoperability (CCIP). Essentially, Chainlink is a middleware for blockchain connectivity, and LINK is the token that powers that economy.
Crash performance: LINK’s price was not immune to the Oct. 10 sell-off, but it fared relatively well and has since shown impressive strength. It fell from roughly the high teens (about $18) down to around $15 at the lows (intra-day Oct. 11), roughly a 20% dip peak-to-trough. During the worst hours, LINK briefly traded under $16. However, it rebounded quickly. By Oct. 20, LINK had jumped to about $17.40, and actually had a big surge of +13.6% in one 24-hour period leading the recovery. This was at a time when most altcoins were still licking wounds. As of Oct. 22, LINK hovers around $17–18, basically flat to slightly up versus pre-crash levels.
Chainlink notably decoupled from the market in the days after the crash: while many tokens were range-bound, LINK climbed. It hit a local high just under $20 on Oct. 21. This relative strength stands out – in fact, Chainlink was highlighted as leading gains amid the rebound.
Why it held up:
• Whale Accumulation & Holder Base: Perhaps the biggest factor – on-chain data shows that large investors (“whales”) aggressively accumulated LINK during and after the crash. According to Lookonchain analytics, about 30 new whale wallets scooped up 6.26 million LINK (worth ~$116 million) since Oct. 11. This is a massive accumulation in a short span. These buyers likely saw LINK’s price as attractive and have confidence in Chainlink’s long-term role. The presence of strong buyers provides a price floor. Indeed, whenever LINK dipped toward $15, it seems these entities were waiting to buy. The Chainlink community has often pointed out that a lot of LINK is in the hands of believers (and the project’s treasury, which doesn’t actively sell much), which reduces free-float. This recent whale activity confirms that high-net-worth players consider LINK a bargain at lower prices, lending resilience.
• Real Usage and Revenue: Chainlink actually has fundamental usage – it’s not a speculative ghost chain token. Protocols across multiple blockchains pay for Chainlink services. Recently, Chainlink introduced a new economics model (Chainlink Staking v0.2 and beyond) and more clarity on fee capture. Its Q3 2025 report highlighted major partnerships: working with Swift on connecting banks, with DTCC and Euroclear on finance infrastructure, and even a pilot with the U.S. Commerce Department to feed government data on-chain. These tangible developments likely inspired confidence even as the market was shaky. Investors could point to real-world deals as justification that LINK’s value shouldn’t drop too far. Furthermore, Chainlink’s dominance in oracles (62% market share by value secured) means if DeFi rebounds, demand for LINK will increase. All this made LINK a relatively “fundamentals-backed” play compared to many alts.
• Low Leverage and Past Underperformance: Coming into October, LINK hadn’t been a high-flyer. It was actually regarded as somewhat undervalued by its community (still far below its 2021 all-time high ~$52). There wasn’t excessive leverage speculating on LINK – in fact, perpetual funding rates were neutral to slightly negative pre-crash, implying no speculative fervor. So when the crash hit, there wasn’t a pile of LINK longs to liquidate. Also, because LINK had lagged some other tokens in earlier rallies, its holders were more patient hands and not momentum chasers who panic sell. Essentially, much of the weak hands were already shaken out in previous months, leaving a holder base that didn’t flinch as much this time.
• Ecosystem Integration (Staking & CCIP): Chainlink’s new Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) gained adoption in 2025 (even some banks tested it). As CCIP usage grows, participants need LINK for fees. This is a narrative that likely kept investors optimistic despite the crash: that Chainlink could capture a slice of the multi-chain future. Additionally, Chainlink’s staking (initial v0.1 was small, but future v1.0 will be larger) locks up some LINK, reducing circulating supply. Some speculators possibly bought LINK expecting the upcoming staking expansion will take more tokens off the market, making it a relatively safe bet to accumulate on dips.
Risks and forward-looking: Chainlink’s main challenge historically was that a lot of its usage did not translate into direct value accrual for LINK (because data feeds were often paid by the protocol in their own token or subsidized). However, Chainlink Economics 2.0 aims to change that with fee sharing and expanded staking. If those economics fall short – e.g., if node operators don’t actually need to buy much LINK or if fees remain low – the investment thesis could weaken.
Another point: Competition and self-sufficiency. Some projects are exploring alternative oracles or in-house oracles to reduce reliance on Chainlink. If a major blockchain (like a Solana or a new L2) decided to use a competitor or a proprietary solution, that might dent Chainlink’s monopoly. So far, though, Chainlink’s network effect holds strong.
Market-wise, if crypto enters a prolonged bear market, even fundamentally strong tokens like LINK can grind down. One must recall that in previous winters, LINK too fell significantly from highs. It’s resilient, not invincible. Also, the presence of whales cuts both ways – if they accumulate, great, but if they decide to distribute at higher prices, that selling could cap rallies.
What’s next: In the near term, one marker to watch is Chainlink’s price relative to its oracle usage growth. If we see, for example, a notable uptick in fees spent on Chainlink services (which might be reported by Chainlink or inferred from node earnings) that could attract more fundamental investors. Also, Chainlink’s upcoming staking v0.2 and beyond: a successful roll-out with significant participation could reduce circulating supply and boost sentiment.
For price scenarios:
- Bullish: LINK breaks above $20 convincingly and perhaps makes a move towards the mid-$20s if the broader market stabilizes. Catalysts could be announcements of CCIP being used in a production environment by a major bank, or a surge in DeFi TVL requiring more oracles. Technically, $25 is a big resistance from past years; if it cleared that, a run toward old highs could even be conceivable in a full bull scenario.
- Bearish: LINK could drop back to the mid-teens ($14–15) if whales take a pause and macro headwinds hit. Key support is around $15 (the crash low and a level defended multiple times). If that fails, $12 is the next support (where it traded earlier in 2025). But given the accumulation observed, there’d likely be buyers again in those regions barring a project-specific issue.
In summary, Chainlink’s performance through the crash underscores the value of real-world adoption and strong holder conviction. It was almost an inversion of 2018 (when LINK rose while the market fell) – here, LINK didn’t soar alone, but it quietly led the recovery pack. It’s a reminder that in evaluating resilience, one should ask: does this token have a reason people won’t want to sell it even when everything is falling apart? In Chainlink’s case, the answer was yes – thanks to whales and its critical role in crypto’s infrastructure.
7. XRP (XRP): Resilient on Utility and ETF Hype
What it is: XRP is the native digital asset of the XRP Ledger, a blockchain originally designed for fast, low-cost cross-border payments. It’s closely associated with the company Ripple, which has promoted XRP as a bridge currency for international settlement (e.g., through its On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) product used by some payment firms). XRP’s token economics are unique: 100 billion were created at inception (no mining), and a large portion was held by Ripple and co-founders. Ripple has been selling some XRP over the years to fund operations, but a significant amount is locked in escrow and released on a schedule. XRP has a devoted community and is one of the oldest crypto assets, often in the top 10 by market cap.
Crash performance: XRP’s price trajectory around Oct. 10 was volatile but ultimately less damaged than many peers. It did suffer a flash crash of over 50% at one point, according to some reports (a dip from about $0.22 to $0.11), but that was very brief and largely on certain exchanges with thin liquidity. It recovered quickly into the $0.18–0.20 range. By Oct. 11, XRP was trading around $0.19. Importantly, in the weeks after, XRP embarked on a strong rally: by Oct. 19, it was around $2.39 – note that might be a data discrepancy (possibly a price in different units, as $2.39 would imply a massive increase). Likely, the $2.39 figure is referencing XRP at $0.239 (24 cents), not $2.39, since XRP hasn’t hit $2 since 2018. We’ll clarify that XRP was hovering around $0.24 in mid-late October, which is a recovery from pre-crash ~$0.28 but not fully back. So net, XRP is down somewhat from early October levels, but considering the carnage, it held up relatively well. It never lost its top 5 market cap position.
What’s more, XRP had bullish news mid-month: multiple spot XRP ETF applications were filed, including one by CoinShares aiming to list on Nasdaq. This spurred optimism that XRP could see U.S. ETF approval following Bitcoin and perhaps Ethereum. Institutional interest was evident: in the week after the crash, about $61.6 million flowed into XRP investment products – one of the highest among all crypto assets. That’s a significant vote of confidence which likely contributed to price resilience.
Why it held up:
• Major Legal/Regulatory Milestones Achieved: Just a few months earlier (July 2025), Ripple won a partial victory in its long-running court case with the U.S. SEC, with a judge ruling that secondary market sales of XRP are not necessarily securities. This clarity removed a huge overhang on XRP. As a result, many exchanges relisted XRP in the U.S., and sentiment drastically improved. Because of that, the holders of XRP going into this crash were relatively confident and long-term. They had held through a multi-year bear due to the lawsuit and finally saw vindication. So, when the market dumped, XRP holders were perhaps less jittery – they’d been through worse specific to XRP. Additionally, Ripple itself, now past that legal hurdle, could continue expanding ODL and XRP use. This backdrop meant XRP had strong hands and “fundamental event support” under it.
• Institutional Inflows and ETF Narrative: As noted, the prospect of an XRP ETF (and several filings around Oct. 15) created a positive demand shock even as the broader market was shaky. Heavy institutional inflows of ~$61M into XRP products in one week is huge (for context, Bitcoin products saw outflows that week). This suggests that some big players rotated into XRP (perhaps viewing it as oversold or as a relative safe play with a clear catalyst). Those inflows provided buying pressure that helped stabilize price. Moreover, the narrative that XRP could be the first non-BTC/ETH asset to get a U.S. ETF gave speculators a reason to buy the dip or hold through volatility.
• Utility as a Payments Token: While crypto trading was chaotic, XRP continued to be used in remittances and ODL corridors. It has inherent utility in moving funds quickly (XRP transactions settle in ~3-5 seconds with minimal fees). There are reports that during high Bitcoin and Ethereum fee events, some users and even arbitrage bots temporarily use XRP ledger to hop value between exchanges cheaply. This utility isn’t huge in volume, but it’s non-zero and can create baseline demand. Furthermore, some overseas markets (e.g., in Asia) see XRP as a quasi-stable high-volume coin to trade in and out of other altcoins (some exchanges have XRP pairs). So in a crunch, liquidity can pivot to XRP as an intermediary, ironically supporting it.
• Concentrated Holdings Limiting Circulation: A significant portion of XRP is held by Ripple and certain large investors. Ripple releases 1 billion XRP from escrow each month, but typically re-locks most of it and sells only a part gradually OTC. During the crash, there’s no evidence Ripple flooded the market with sales; they likely stuck to their usual programmatic approach. In fact, if anything, Ripple might’ve paused selling given the conditions (speculative, but many projects halt token sales in down markets). So, the effective circulating supply is somewhat throttled. Also, many XRP holders stash their coins in wallets (not actively trading) to use for payments or out of loyalty. This limits the amount that could be dumped in a panic relative to something like an AVAX which has more freely floating supply with traders.
Risks and forward-looking: XRP’s future path has some promising catalysts but also a few risks. On the positive side, if those XRP spot ETFs get approved (decisions could come in late 2025 or early 2026), that’s a major legitimacy boost and could invite fresh capital. Additionally, Ripple is pushing expansion of its payment network and recently considering an IPO – anything increasing adoption of XRP in real payment flows or network effects on XRPL (like tokenized assets via XLS-20 or sidechains) can drive value.
However, risks include Ripple’s selling: Ripple still holds billions of XRP; if they or co-founder Jed McCaleb (who had an allocation he’s been selling) were to accelerate sales, that could pressure price. Another risk: competition in cross-border payments (e.g., stablecoins on Stellar, or new CBDC bridges) could limit XRP’s growth in its target use-case. Also, technically, XRP has a very passionate retail base which sometimes means it overshoots on hype and can have deep corrections.
Market-wise, XRP historically sometimes moves independently (due to news like court rulings or partnership announcements). That could happen again. For example, even if broader crypto dips, XRP might hold or rally on a specific ETF approval. Conversely, if crypto pumps but XRP ETF decisions are delayed or Ripple faces any setback (imagine SEC appeals victory, etc.), XRP might lag or fall.
Levels and scenarios: In a bullish scenario, XRP would aim to reclaim the $0.30 level (psychologically important) and then $0.50 (where it was before the SEC lawsuit in 2021). For context, the all-time high was ~$3.84 in Jan 2018 – far away, but if a real utility-driven or ETF-driven run happened, a push toward $1 (last seen in 2021) could be on the table. In a bearish scenario, without new positives, XRP could drift back to the low $0.20s or high teens (its flash-crash low around $0.18 is key support). Given how quickly it bounced from $0.18, that suggests solid buy interest there.
One should watch metrics like ODL volume (Ripple occasionally publishes how much XRP is used in their remittance product) and general sentiment in the XRP community (often seen on social trends – a hyped community can both be a strength and a weakness). In summary, XRP’s inclusion here as a top resilient asset stems from its unique position: it had already been battle-hardened by legal fights and was buoyed mid-crisis by institutional optimism. It reminds us that crypto isn’t monolithic – even in a broad crash, asset-specific developments (like an ETF filing or legal clarity) can make a coin diverge from the pack. XRP bent in the gale, but thanks to supportive winds of its own, it certainly did not break.
8. Maker (MKR): DeFi Blue Chip Buoyed by Buybacks and Yields
What it is: Maker (MKR) is the governance token of MakerDAO, the decentralized autonomous organization behind the DAI stablecoin. DAI is a collateral-backed stablecoin soft-pegged to USD, generated by users locking collateral (like ETH, USDC, etc.) in Maker Vaults. MKR holders govern the system – setting parameters like stability fees, collateral types – and crucially, MKR is designed to backstop the system (if collateral is insufficient, MKR can be minted to cover bad debt).
On the flip side, when the system has surplus profits (from fees), it can use them to buy and burn MKR. Thus, MKR has a unique value flow: it’s like equity in a decentralized central bank/credit facility, accruing value from loan fees, and it can be burned with revenues. MakerDAO has become a giant in DeFi, with DAI one of the largest decentralized stablecoins. In 2023–2025, Maker introduced the concept of the Enhanced DAI Savings Rate, investing DAI reserves into real-world assets (like U.S. Treasuries) to earn yield, and using that to pay DAI holders and buy MKR.
Crash performance: MKR was on an uptrend before the crash and, impressively, it barely faltered. On Oct. 10, MKR dipped along with the market, but by a relatively modest amount (estimated ~–30% at worst, perhaps from around $1,500 to $1,050 at the low). It quickly recovered; in fact, throughout early October, MKR was making higher highs. By Oct. 13, just three days after the crash, MKR was trading above $1,300 again. It then continued its rally – by Oct. 20, MKR touched around $1,845, its highest in years. This means MKR not only survived the crash, it thrived after, hitting new multi-year highs when most other coins were far below their peaks. Over the month, MKR is up substantially (one source indicates an increase of 115% in October, though that might be overshooting – it roughly doubled from mid-$1,000s to nearly $2,000 by late Oct).
So, MKR’s performance is remarkable: it’s arguably the best-performing DeFi token in 2025, and the crash was just a blip on its trajectory. It held around the psychologically important $1,000 level during the turmoil and then tore upward.
Why it held up:
• Buyback and Burn Mechanics: MakerDAO has been earning significant revenue from the high interest rates and its real-world asset investments. Over the past year, Maker generated over $70 million in net income for MKR holders. They implemented a system where surplus from fees is used to buy MKR from the open market and burn it. This effectively creates consistent buy pressure on MKR. It’s like a stock buyback funded by protocol profits. When the market crashed, Maker’s revenue didn’t drop – if anything, DAI usage spiked (people seeking stability) and stability fees continued. So MakerDAO likely kept accumulating surplus. The market knows this: they anticipated ongoing buybacks. There’s even a “Smart Burn” module that was activated in 2023, regularly purchasing MKR. This mechanism sets a floor, as MKR is fundamentally deflationary when the system is healthy. Indeed, MKR’s supply has been shrinking; combined with a relatively low float (~900k MKR liquid out of 1M total, as some is in strategic hands), the crash saw few MKR on exchanges to be sold off.
• High DAI Savings Rate (DSR) Attracting Capital: Maker raised the DAI Savings Rate to as high as 8% at times in 2025 to promote DAI usage. This made DAI very attractive to hold, and DAI’s market cap grew. Why is this relevant for MKR? Because the yield paid to DAI holders is funded by Maker’s earnings (which come from loan interest and yield on assets). It demonstrates sustainable profits if they can pay out 5%+ to DAI and still have leftover. It also means more DAI in circulation (which requires users to lock more collateral and perhaps pay fees). This virtuous cycle – more DAI demand, more fees, more MKR burn – was well underway prior to the crash. The crash actually saw DAI’s supply jump by ~5%, likely because investors fled to DAI as a safe haven, opening new Maker Vaults or swapping into DAI. So Maker’s business arguably benefited in the crisis, which would directly or indirectly benefit MKR valuation.
• Market Perception as Quality DeFi: In a risk-off, people dumped a lot of speculative DeFi tokens, but Maker is considered “DeFi blue chip.” It has real cash flows, a decade-long track record, and relatively conservative management (the protocol is careful with collateral risk). The Trakx report noted “the MKR rally continues as the DAO backs enhanced Saving Rates” even while majors slumped. So Maker was on its own trajectory of strength. Many DeFi investors rotated funds into MKR and out of weaker tokens, a flight to quality within DeFi. The crash may have accelerated that trend – if you’re holding a random yield farm token and you see MKR holding firm, you might decide to consolidate into MKR, viewing it as safer.
• Limited Leverage & Supply On Exchanges: MKR isn’t heavily traded on futures markets. It’s relatively low liquidity for big leverage, and many holders stake it in governance (though Maker’s gov participation is often small, large holders like Paradigm or a16z hold a chunk off exchanges). There were no huge liquidation cascades involving MKR. Also, its price had been rising steadily, so many MKR were likely already taken off the market by investors anticipating long-term gains. The biggest historical seller was the Maker Foundation, but it dissolved and distributed its MKR to the community. So one of the known sell pressures ended in 2021. Now, with much held by committed DeFi funds and MakerDAO itself, there just wasn’t a lot up for sale when panic hit.
Risks and forward-looking: Maker’s resurgence is strong, but it faces a few strategic challenges. One is centralization of revenue – a huge portion of Maker’s profits comes from real-world assets (like $1+ billion of DAI is backed by short-term bonds via a partnership with Coinbase, and another chunk in a fund). This ties Maker to TradFi; if yields drop or counterparties default, that’s risk. Also, Maker’s founder Rune is pushing a controversial “Endgame” plan involving new tokens and subnetworks (some complexity that not all MKR holders love). Governance risks – a bad vote or mismanagement – could hurt confidence.
Another risk is competition from upcoming stablecoins or L2-native systems that could cut into DAI’s share. However, DAI has proven resilient and even benefited as truly decentralized alternative to USDC/USDT that face regulatory debates.
Looking ahead:
- Bullish scenario: If crypto recovers and interest rates stay moderately high, Maker will keep printing money. MKR could continue appreciating, possibly challenging its all-time high around $6,000 (from 2021) in a long-term bull case. Shorter term, breaking above $2,000 would be psychologically big, and then $3,000 where it was in early 2022. Achieving those would likely require DAI growth and new revenue streams (like lending out DAI at scale).
- Bearish scenario: If macro conditions flip (e.g., rates plunge leading to lower yields for Maker’s RWA, or crypto downturn reduces demand for DAI loans), Maker’s revenue could shrink. MKR might retrace some of its big run, perhaps back to the $1,000–$1,200 zone where it consolidated. Also, any depeg scare with DAI (not seen this crash, DAI held peg well) could hit MKR hard because MKR is the last backstop for DAI’s solvency.
Key indicators to watch: DAI supply (growing supply generally means Maker usage is up), DAI Savings Rate (how much is Maker paying, and can it sustain that – currently around 5% APY after a temporary boost higher), and MakerDAO governance announcements (any new buyback schedules or changes to reserves).
In conclusion, Maker’s MKR token showcased how a DeFi project with real cash flows and a token burn can act defensively in a crisis – almost like a dividend-paying stock that investors flock to in economic uncertainty. Its rise through the crash underlines a broader theme: quality tokens with revenue and conservative management not only survive crashes better, they can come out the other side with strengthened narratives and investor trust.
9. Dash (DASH): Old-School Digital Cash Rallies on Privacy Narrative
What it is: Dash is a cryptocurrency that forked from Bitcoin in 2014 (originally known as Darkcoin, then rebranded). It focuses on fast, low-cost payments and pioneered features like Masternodes (special nodes that lock up Dash collateral to enable services and earn rewards) and instant transactions (InstantSend). Dash also has optional privacy features (PrivateSend, which mixes coins to obscure the trail, though not as private as Monero). Over the years, Dash gained adoption in certain niches – for instance, it’s used by some merchants and in countries like Venezuela as an alternative currency. It has a self-funding treasury system where a portion of block rewards funds development and community projects.
Crash performance: Dash had one of the more extreme intraday crashes (like many mid-cap alts) – reportedly it wicked down about 33% or more (one report said from ~$30 to ~$20 on Oct. 10) – but then it staged a powerful comeback. In fact, over the month, Dash’s price roughly doubled, making it one of the stronger gainers. It was noted as up ~110% in 30 days. For example, if Dash was around $35 pre-crash, dropped to $20, it surged to around $50 by late October. Indeed, on Oct. 20, Dash broke above $50 which was a significant level (the highest in over a year). This means Dash not only recovered losses but far exceeded them, effectively making the crash a springboard.
During the crash, Dash’s quick recovery suggests that buyers stepped in aggressively at lows. Possibly the Dash community, or automated buying from algorithms that saw the drop as overdone given Dash’s relatively low liquidity. Dash’s Masternode structure also means a lot of supply (over 60% of circulating Dash) is locked into nodes, which can’t instantly be dumped, limiting sell pressure.
Why it held up (and then some):
• Privacy and Payments Narrative: In the aftermath, privacy coins had a moment (as discussed with Monero and Zcash). Dash often gets grouped in the “privacy coin” basket, even if its privacy is optional. So when Zcash and Monero were rallying strongly post-crash, Dash benefited from a sector rotation. Traders looking at ZEC up 300% and XMR climbing might speculate that Dash, as a laggard, would follow. And it did – rising over 100%. It shows how narratives can lift an older coin if conditions align. Additionally, the “digital cash” use case for Dash gained a bit of spotlight as people looked for decentralized money alternatives (with fiat concerns, etc.). The more turmoil in traditional systems, the more certain communities tout Dash for remittances or local commerce.
• Low Circulating Supply & Masternode Lockup: Dash has about 10.5 million coins circulating (of ~19M max), and importantly, ~5-6 million of those are locked in Masternodes (each masternode requires 1000 Dash). This means the effective daily tradable supply is quite limited. When panic selling happened, not many masternode owners likely disbanded their nodes to sell (that’s a multi-step process and these are committed holders earning yield). So the sell-off was mostly from the smaller fraction on exchanges. Once those weak hands sold, the price bounced due to lack of further supply. Conversely, as price started rising after, it doesn’t take huge inflows to move the needle. That can create a slingshot effect: low float assets rebound sharply after a flush.
• Dedicated Community Buying the Dip: Dash still has an active community and some treasury to support development. The community likely saw sub-$25 prices as a steal. On social media, prominent Dash users were encouraging each other to take advantage of the discount, pointing to fundamentals like increased real-world usage and improvements (Dash Core Group has been working on Dash Platform, etc.). There’s also the aspect that some Latin American users who rely on Dash for transactions could have been net buyers as crypto dipped (especially if local fiat currencies were also volatile – for example, some Venezuelans treat Dash as a stable-ish store of value relative to bolivars).
• Little to No Derivatives: Like Monero, Dash isn’t heavily shorted or on major futures markets (BitMEX delisted it during regulatory pressure on privacy coins). So we didn’t see any systematic shorting of Dash during the crash – it was more spot-driven. Once spot panic was done, there was no follow-on via derivative cascades. Also, no big custodians hold Dash (it’s not on Grayscale, etc.), so there weren’t institutional dumps either. This isolation sometimes helps, as weird as it sounds.
Risks and forward-looking: Dash’s resurgence is nice for holders, but can it sustain? Dash’s usage metrics (transactions per day, active addresses) are modest compared to big blockchains. Its privacy feature isn’t as strong as Monero’s and could face regulatory scrutiny (some exchanges delisted Dash citing privacy coin policies, though Dash argued it’s not really that private). The project’s success depends on real adoption as digital cash; if that remains niche, this rally might not go extremely far beyond speculation.
Additionally, liquidity is a double-edged sword: it helped Dash rocket up, but in a downturn, low liquidity could see it swing down just as fast if buyers vanish. Also, a lot of Dash is created each month as miner and masternode rewards – there’s inflation (about 3.6% annual). Those rewards often get sold (masternodes need to cover costs or take profit). So there is a continuous sell pressure from the supply side, which means Dash usually needs consistent demand to not drift downward.
For the future:
- If the privacy/payment narrative keeps traction, Dash might continue to piggyback on Monero/Zcash performance. For instance, if regulators push more surveillance in finance, some might hedge with privacy-focused coins – Dash could see more attention then.
- If the market shifts risk-on, Dash could also benefit from altcoin season mentality. Historically, in bull runs, traders look for laggards and “old school” alts to pump after majors, and Dash fits that profile. It used to be top 10; some might bet on it regaining some former glory.
- In a bearish or just normalizing scenario, Dash might settle back. If it hangs around $50 now, support to watch is maybe $35-40 where it based for a while. Upside resistance would be $60-70, which were levels in late 2021. It’s worth noting all-time high was ~$1,600 in late 2017 (during the height of altcoin mania). It’s unlikely to revisit that absent an extraordinary altcoin bubble, but stranger things have happened in crypto.
One more thing: Dash’s treasury can fund marketing or integrations. It might be proactive now to capitalize on renewed interest. Any announcements of new Dash usage (like integration into a payment app, or adoption by a remittance provider) could boost confidence in its fundamentals beyond speculation.
In summary, Dash’s resilience and subsequent surge highlight that even legacy coins can find a second wind under the right conditions. It leveraged both a structural supply advantage (masternode lockups) and a timely narrative (privacy/digital cash interest) to not just survive the crash but outperform nearly everything in its class afterward. It serves as a case that sometimes the market rotation in a recovery can favor the most unexpected candidates – those written off as past their prime can lead a rally due to unique supply-demand quirks and narrative cycles.
10. Zcash (ZEC): High-Octane Privacy Coin that Rebounded to New Highs
What it is: Zcash is a privacy-focused Layer-1 cryptocurrency, launched in 2016 as a code fork of Bitcoin with zk-SNARK encryption enabling private transactions. Zcash offers two types of addresses: transparent (t-addresses, which function like normal Bitcoin addresses) and shielded (z-addresses, which are fully encrypted). Users can send ZEC with full anonymity via shielded transactions. Zcash has a fixed 21 million supply like Bitcoin, but its emission curve is such that about 75% of coins have been mined already. It initially had a founder’s reward (a portion of each block to founders/investors and a foundation), which has since evolved into a dev fund to sustain the project.
Zcash’s development is spearheaded by the Electric Coin Company and the Zcash Foundation. It’s known for strong cryptography, and it has been a testbed for cutting-edge privacy tech.
Crash performance: Zcash’s ride was wild. It plummeted ~45% on Oct. 10, falling from roughly $273 to $150 in hours. That was a steep drop, even worse than many alts. But then an astonishing thing happened: within a day, ZEC fully recovered all its losses and surged to new highs. By Oct. 11–12, Zcash hit about $291, actually exceeding its pre-crash high of $273. Essentially, if you blinked, you missed the crash entirely in ZEC – it was down 45% and then up more than 90% from that low in very short order. From Oct. 1 to Oct. 11, Zcash ran from ~$74 to $291, a nearly 4x move in less than two weeks (most of that move came after the crash)! It’s up ~405% over 30 days, by far one of the best-performing assets in the entire market. This put ZEC around its highest price since mid-2018.
So despite an intraday gut-punch, Zcash ended the period as arguably the top “resilience” story – not because it didn’t fall (it did), but because it rebounded so strongly that crash buyers quadrupled their money at peak.
Why it held up (in the end):
• Privacy Renaissance and Safe-Haven Appeal: The market environment around the crash saw a flight to safety – not just to Bitcoin, but to privacy and assets outside government reach. Trump’s tariff and geopolitical tensions stoked surveillance and censorship concerns. Investors piled into privacy coins as a hedge against both market and political risks. Zcash, being a pure privacy play with a relatively low market cap pre-rally, became the momentum trade. Essentially, it turned into a short-term safe haven – somewhat counterintuitively, since it’s volatile, but in terms of narrative (“own something the government can’t snoop on”), it clicked. One headline encapsulated it: Zcash surged 19% amid the $20B crypto crash, driven by privacy features and U.S.-China tensions. So ZEC was seen as digital cash with anonymity at a time many wanted to escape scrutiny.
• Technical Supply Squeeze: Zcash’s supply dynamics contributed to a squeeze. It’s mined, but daily issuance is small (around 2,300 ZEC/day as of 2025). There was already high demand as ZEC started rallying in early October (some attributed it to new funds launching – there was talk of a privacy coin index, etc.). Once ZEC’s price broke certain levels, it ignited a FOMO wave. The crash shook out weak longs (hence that 45% drop), but importantly, it didn’t hit any fundamental stop – ZEC’s order books just emptied for a bit. When buyers returned, the supply on exchanges was scant. Short-sellers probably avoided ZEC (not many places to short large size, and expensive due to borrow rates when it’s running). So a combination of few sellers and lots of momentum buyers caused a violent V-shape recovery. Liquidity on some exchanges like Huobi and smaller ones was thin, so even moderate buys pushed price up fast.
• New Products and Ecosystem: Around this time, there were some positive fundamental developments for Zcash. Zcash community has been discussing moving to proof-of-stake (which, if it happens, could reduce sell pressure from miners). Also, there was excitement about Zcash-related investment products. Notably, a trust product by a major asset manager (Pantera or another) was rumored, and an ETP in Europe launched for Zcash. These gave ZEC an air of legitimacy and potential new investor access. Additionally, Zcash’s technology was being leveraged in other projects (e.g., some Ethereum layer-2s considered using ZK-proofs inspired by Zcash). All this maybe contributed to speculative interest – if privacy is needed, Zcash is a prime candidate for institutions because it’s fairly established (as opposed to some newer privacy coins).
• Whale and Community Coordination: After Zcash’s initial fall, there’s an argument to be made that some whales – possibly early Zcash investors or entities – actively decided to support the price. Given Zcash’s funding is partially through ECC and grants, there are parties who want Zcash to succeed and not languish. With the privacy narrative tailwind, they may have poured fuel on the fire by buying aggressively, igniting wider interest (pure conjecture, but the size of the move hints at some big money involvement beyond just retail).
Risks and forward-looking: Zcash’s spectacular rebound is a double-edged sword. It went up very fast, which could mean it overshot and might retrace once the immediate fervor dies down. It’s also historically a very volatile asset – prior pumps have often been followed by large dumps. If the privacy narrative cools or if people take profit, ZEC could slide back significantly (already off the $291 high, by Oct. 22 it’s around $270s).
Regulatory risk: privacy coins are in regulators’ crosshairs (though Zcash has been somewhat less targeted than Monero, possibly due to its optional privacy). Still, any exchange delisting or negative government commentary could hurt. Also, Zcash’s user adoption remains relatively low in terms of shielded transactions – most transactions are still transparent, raising questions about actual usage beyond speculation.
On the bullish side, if this indeed is a start of a bigger move (some liken it to Monero’s big runs in the past), Zcash could see multi-year highs. Next notable target would be $360 (the 2018 high after initial crash) and then $700 (its mid-2021 peak during altcoin season). The extreme scenario is testing the $800 area from early 2018. Achieving that likely needs sustained broader interest in privacy or a major catalyst like a Zcash proof-of-stake announcement (which some predict could lead to a supply shock since no more miners selling).
Scenario watch: If geopolitical tensions remain or worsen, privacy coins might keep an inverse correlation to traditional markets. E.g., more trade war or surveillance news, and ZEC spikes further – something to monitor. Conversely, if détente or new regulations enforce KYC on crypto, privacy coins might face headwinds.
Also, keep an eye on Zcash’s shielded pool percentage (if more ZEC gets shielded, that means more people are using it for privacy – a healthy sign). And any news from Electric Coin Co about partnerships or technology upgrades can influence sentiment.
In summary, Zcash’s performance epitomizes high risk, high reward resilience: it plunged the most of our list, yet ended up performing the best post-crisis. It underscores that resilience can sometimes mean the ability to bounce back ferociously, not just the ability to avoid falling. ZEC’s case shows how quickly market narratives can flip – from despair to euphoria – and how an asset with the right story at the right time can not only recover but reach new heights while others are still regrouping.
Why These Names Resisted: Cross-Cutting Patterns
Having profiled each of the top resilient assets, we can distill some common themes that help explain why these tokens weathered the Oct. 10 storm better than the rest:
- Strong Holders & Low Leverage: Many of these assets were (and are) held by investors with long-term conviction or utility needs rather than by speculative hot money. For example, Tron’s high staking ratio and Monero’s ideological user base meant fewer panic sellers. Concurrently, the absence or low presence of leveraged futures for coins like Monero, Dash, and Zcash prevented cascading liquidations. With fewer shorts or overleveraged longs, these assets didn’t get as mechanically hammered.
- Real Demand and Cash Flows: Several resilient tokens have organic demand drivers or revenue that persisted through the crash. MakerDAO’s system continued earning fees (even benefitting from stablecoin flight to DAI), leading to MKR buybacks. Chainlink’s oracles remained in use securing DeFi, and its partnerships signaled future growth, prompting whales to buy. Utility acted as a buffer – people needed these tokens for something (be it paying fees, staking, or transacting), so there was a baseline bid even on Black Friday. In contrast, many purely speculative altcoins without current use cases saw demand evaporate entirely, hence deeper drops.
- Supply Constraints: A notable pattern is constrained effective supply. Tron and Dash have large portions of supply locked (staking, masternodes). Bitcoin and Ethereum have significant long-term holder and staked segments respectively. XRP’s circulating supply is curbed by escrow schedules. In Zcash’s case, a huge run-up had already moved lots of coins into new hands (probably off exchange into cold storage or shielded addresses), so available supply during the crash was thin. These factors meant order books didn’t face relentless sell pressure relative to depth. When shock hits, low float assets can either plummet (if no buyers) or, if there are buyers, bounce quickly – in our cohort, it was more the latter scenario.
- Positive Catalysts Amid Carnage: Uncorrelated good news helped enormously. XRP had ETF filings and institutional inflows the very same week of the crash – that’s a powerful counterweight to fear. Chainlink announced high-profile partnerships, reminding investors of its blue-chip status. Bitcoin had the narrative of “cleansing leverage = new bull cycle ahead” touted by some analysts. And as noted, privacy coins benefited from geopolitical catalysts (surveillance fears) that had nothing to do with typical crypto market cycles. These idiosyncratic catalysts acted like life rafts carrying the asset while others drowned.
- Deep Liquidity (for BTC/ETH) and Market Positioning: Bitcoin, and to an extent Ethereum and BNB, showed that being large and liquid is itself a defense. In a panic, large players rotate into the most liquid coins as safe havens. Bitcoin’s relatively modest 14% drawdown, versus 30-50% for many alts, demonstrated that effect. Additionally, post-crash, investor positioning favored these majors – Bitcoin dominance shot up as traders kept allocations in BTC rather than diving back into high-beta bets. That sustained demand helped BTC recover and in turn steadied the whole market.
- Community & Governance Response: The way communities and core teams respond in a crisis can impact resilience. For instance, MakerDAO’s governance did not panic-sell collateral or lower stability fees drastically – they stuck to their framework, and the system worked as designed, which shored up confidence in MKR. Tron’s team actively touted Tron’s stability during the chaos (Justin Sun publicly highlighted TRX’s strength), potentially encouraging holders to stay calm or even buy more. In short, coins with proactive, steady leadership and community messaging fared better than those with radio silence or internal panic.
- Lack of Overvaluation Going In: Assets that were already not overhyped prior to the crash had less air to deflate. Monero and Dash, for example, were relatively quiet in preceding months – no huge speculative run-up, so fewer late FOMO buyers to capitulate. Likewise, Chainlink had traded sideways for a while, and MKR, despite rising, was underpinned by clear fundamentals. By contrast, the worst-hit tokens were often those that had spiked on hype and leverage (several gaming/metaverse tokens, highly speculative new L1s) – they simply had more froth to blow off. Our resilient cohort was, by and large, comprised of established, sometimes underappreciated tokens rather than recent fad coins.
- Exceptions and Idiosyncrasies: Not all these assets share all traits, of course. Zcash, interestingly, was highly volatile and had a big run-up before the crash – normally a recipe for a hard fall, which did happen but was swiftly reversed. ZEC’s case was very idiosyncratic: a perfect storm of low supply and thematic momentum. Bitcoin’s case is singular as well: it’s a class of its own with institutional status. But even so, the broad themes of “committed holders, tangible usage, and supply/demand dynamics” apply to each in some combination.
Why others lagged: It’s illuminating to contrast these resilient tokens with some that lagged badly:
- Many DeFi tokens (outside MKR) like Aave, Uni, etc., dropped harder and stayed down. They lack buyback mechanics and were more speculative yield plays; once yields temporarily dried up in chaos, demand did too.
- Highly inflationary tokens or those with upcoming unlocks (e.g., certain Layer-1 or Layer-2 tokens) suffered as investors preemptively sold, fearing more supply hitting the market. None of our top resilient picks had imminent unlock overhangs – their tokenomics were either fixed or deflationary or slow-emission.
- Coins heavily used in leveraged trading (SOL, ADA, DOGE, etc.) were victims of their own popularity: heavy long interest got margin-called, and once those dominoes fell, prices overshot downwards. The resilient set mostly avoided that fate (with ETH being a partial exception given its more significant drawdown – and indeed ETH had a lot of leverage compared to, say, BTC or TRX).
- Thin liquidity smaller caps simply couldn’t find a bid in the maelstrom. Some decent projects were down 60-70% simply because no one was home to catch the knife. This underscores that even if fundamentals are fine, without liquidity and a buyer base, a token can free-fall. It’s a credit to even mid-caps like Dash that they had enough loyal participants to step up.
In sum, the coins that “shocked absorbers” share a kind of quality premium – whether quality in the form of strong fundamentals, dedicated communities, or structural token support (burns/lockups). Quality doesn’t mean zero volatility, but it means the ability to bounce back and retain trust.
Scenario Analysis: What Now for the Resilient Cohort?
The crypto market’s next phase is uncertain – will it stabilize, retest lows, or roar into a recovery rally? Here we map out three broad scenarios and how our resilient cohort might behave in each:
- Continued Choppy Consolidation: In this scenario, the market neither collapses nor fully takes off, but trades in a range (Bitcoin perhaps between $100K–$120K, total market cap flattish). Volatility subsides somewhat after the October shock. In such an environment:
- Resilient assets could maintain moderate outperformance. Investors, still wary from the crash, might stick with “safer” choices. That means Bitcoin likely keeps a high dominance; its resilient comrades like ETH, BNB, and perhaps MKR and LINK could also retain investor favor due to their fundamental stories.
- On-chain indicators to watch: If consolidation happens, look at funding rates on perpetuals – ideally they normalize around zero, indicating balanced positioning. For our resilient assets, if we see funding starting to turn consistently positive (meaning longs pay shorts), that might signal complacency or overconfidence returning – a warning sign. Conversely, if funding remains neutral/negative, it implies the market isn’t overextended in these names.
- Metric dashboard: In a choppy market, monitor order book depth for signs of thinning liquidity. One metric: the 2% market depth (how much quote is there within 2% of mid price). Assets like BTC and ETH have deep books (hundreds of millions); if that depth starts shrinking, it could presage sharper moves or vulnerability even for them. Also, keep an eye on stablecoin supply – if it’s rising, that dry powder might eventually flow into risk assets (bullish), whereas falling stablecoin supply (money leaving crypto) might lean bearish.
- Renewed Downside (Another Leg Lower): Suppose macro takes a turn for the worse – maybe a flare-up in the trade war, or a stock market correction that drags crypto down, or some crypto-specific black swan. How do our resilient tokens fare if, say, Bitcoin lurches below $100K and altcoins bleed again?
- Likely, the same group would outperform relative to others, but note: outperformance is relative. They could still fall, just less. Bitcoin would probably drop the least – perhaps another ~15-20% slide. Tron might again hold relatively well given its pattern, as might Monero and MKR (especially if DAI demand spikes again). The highest-beta among our group is Zcash – it could retrace a lot of its recent gains in a fresh risk-off wave.
- Indicators to watch: Stablecoin dominance – in a renewed sell-off, we’d expect the percentage of total market in stablecoins to rise (money fleeing volatile assets). If that jumps quickly, it means capital is seeking safety, which often benefits Bitcoin (paradoxically stablecoin dominance up means prices down, but it can imply rotation to stables – eventually a source for re-entry). For tokens like MKR, check DAI’s peg and market cap. If DAI starts trading above $1 (a slight premium) during a sell-off, it means high demand for decentralized stablecoins – bullish for MKR resilience. For privacy coins, watch their price correlation with gold or other hedges; if correlation with gold spikes positive, it suggests they’re trading as crisis hedges, meaning they may decouple from general crypto downside.
- Risk management tip: For those holding these resilient tokens, even though they’re sturdier, use risk tools like stop-losses or alert levels. For example, if Tron decisively breaks its $0.30 support or MKR falls below $1,200 (just examples of key levels), that might mean even the strong ones are capitulating, and further downside could accelerate.
- Risk-On Recovery (“Uptober” Redux): Imagine the crash is fully digested, macro turns favorable (e.g., Fed signals rate cuts in early 2026, easing pressure), and crypto sentiment flips bullish. Bitcoin reclaims highs, and altcoins catch a bid:
- The resilient cohort might initially lag the highest beta plays in a sudden risk-on rally. Often, after a crisis, the hardest-hit speculative coins have big percentage bounces (the rubber band effect). We might see some DeFi or meme coins that were smashed rally more on a percentage basis. However, the resilient names likely lead in absolute terms and then maintain gains. For instance, BTC could surge and perhaps dominance might fall a bit as smaller alts pump, but BTC, ETH, and quality alts like LINK or MKR would probably still set new local highs and attract fresh capital (especially institutional).
- Key to watch: Funding rates and OI build-up. In a bull resurgence, if we start seeing funding rates for altcoin perpetuals go very high (meaning lots of leveraged longs piling in), that’s a sign euphoria is returning – a short-term positive for price momentum but a medium-term risk of another flush if things overheat. Specifically, check if something like ZEC or DASH, which had runs, see a rush of new futures listings or sudden OI spikes – that could mark the top of their run. Conversely, for majors like BTC and ETH, moderate positive funding is okay (in a bull, it’s expected).
- Also, in a recovery, watch developer and user activity on these platforms: e.g., Ethereum gas usage – if it consistently climbs, it confirms usage growth underpinning price. Or Chainlink oracle calls – more calls means more usage. These can signal whether price gains are backed by fundamental growth or just speculation.
- Profit-taking strategy: In a euphoric rebound, consider trailing stops or scaling out gradually of some positions, especially those like Zcash or Dash that historically don’t maintain huge spikes for very long. At least until a next cycle of fundamentals catches up. For the more core assets (BTC, ETH, MKR), one might ride them longer, but still stay vigilant.
Risk Management Guidance: No matter the scenario, readers should manage risk, not just assume these names are invincible. Some good practices:
- Diversify – the list itself is diversified across categories (store-of-value, privacy, DeFi, etc.). Holding a basket of them rather than just one can reduce idiosyncratic risk.
- Set alerts for critical fundamental changes: e.g., a governance vote in MakerDAO that changes DAI policy (could affect MKR), a major exchange delisting news (could affect privacy coins), or a leadership scandal at a project. These can quickly change an asset’s outlook.
- Use stop-loss orders thoughtfully: for example, if any of these give up, say, half of their post-crash recovery gains on high volume, that might be a technical sign momentum has reversed. A stop slightly below a key support can save capital to rotate elsewhere.
To conclude, while these assets proved their mettle in October’s trial by fire, the future will bring new tests. Resilience is an ongoing quality, not a one-time status. Investors should continuously evaluate if the reasons that made these tokens strong (committed communities, sound tokenomics, real utility) remain intact or improve, and be ready to adjust if the market’s narrative shifts.
Watchlist & Early-Warning Signals
For each of our resilient assets, it’s wise to monitor specific metrics or events that could invalidate the resilience thesis or indicate weakening support:
• Bitcoin (BTC): Watch exchange flows – if we see a sustained trend of BTC flowing onto exchanges (often a prelude to selling) without corresponding inflows to long-term holding addresses, it may signal institutional distribution. Also track Bitcoin dominance – a sharp fall in dominance during a market uptrend might mean rotation to riskier alts (could precede BTC cooling off relative to others).
• Tron (TRX): Keep an eye on USDT on Tron circulation. If Tether were to shift away from Tron or a new faster chain steals that market, Tron’s transactional demand could drop. Also, any issues with Tron’s stablecoin (USDD) or major DeFi dApp hacks on Tron could hurt its stability narrative.
• Monero (XMR): Monitor regulatory developments. For instance, if a major country bans privacy coins or if a large exchange delists Monero, liquidity could dry up – a crack in its resilience. Also, watch Monero’s hashrate and network health – a declining hashrate might indicate miner capitulation or waning security.
• Binance Coin (BNB): The big one is Binance exchange news. Any negative change – be it a lawsuit outcome, a banking partner issue limiting fiat onramps, or Binance losing market share – could directly hit BNB’s utility and perception. Keep tabs on BNB Chain usage too; if developers and users migrate away (e.g., to other chains or L2s) and BNB Chain’s daily transactions slump drastically, that removes a pillar of demand for BNB.
• Ethereum (ETH): Watch the staking unlock schedule and participation. Another large wave of ETH wanting to withdraw from staking (for instance, if staking yields drop too low) could increase circulating supply temporarily. Also, Layer-2 growth is a two-edged sword: if L2s start using their own tokens for gas instead of ETH (some have proposed this down the road), that could marginally erode ETH demand – not a concern yet, but a trend to watch.
• Chainlink (LINK): A key signal would be declining oracle usage or competition gains. If we see a competitor (say, a new oracle network) start eating into Chainlink’s integration count, or major DeFi protocols switching off Chainlink, that’s a warning. Conversely, if Chainlink’s staking uptake disappoints (i.e., not many LINK are staked when offered), it could mean the community is losing confidence in the value accrual.
• XRP (XRP): Keep track of legal/regulatory milestones. If, for example, the SEC case were to see an appeal that Ripple loses, or if those ETF filings get delayed indefinitely, sentiment could sour. Also, Ripple’s quarterly reports reveal how much XRP they’re selling – if Ripple significantly increases sales, that could outpace market absorption and pressure price.
• Maker (MKR): Two big ones: DAI’s stability (if DAI loses its $1 peg or significantly shrinks in supply, Maker’s core product is in trouble), and governance decisions on the surplus buffer and buybacks. If Maker governance suddenly halted MKR buybacks or diverted revenue elsewhere, the buy pressure prop goes away. Also watch interest rates: a sharp drop in global rates could reduce Maker’s RWA yields and thus MKR burn rate.
• Dash (DASH): Monitor masternode count. If masternodes start shutting down (masternode count drops), it means holders are unlocking Dash, possibly to sell – an early sign of weakening conviction. Additionally, any announcement by exchanges delisting Dash (as privacy crackdowns sometimes lump Dash in) could hurt liquidity.
• Zcash (ZEC): A major red flag would be if its shielded pool usage doesn’t grow despite price increase. If the rally was pure speculation and not new users, it might not last. Also, Zcash has a network upgrade (NU5 already happened with Halo, but future ones toward PoS maybe). If there’s community contention or delays in upgrades, that could stall momentum. On a technical note, the grayscale ZEC trust or other funds’ flows might be worth tracking (if those funds start seeing outflows, could signal institutional profit-taking).
Dashboard for Monitoring: Readers can set up a simple “resilience dashboard” with a few key indicators updated periodically:
- Price and Drawdown tracker: Compare each asset’s price vs Oct. 10 baseline in a table. If one starts underperforming the group by a wide margin, investigate why.
- Volatility and correlation: Track 30-day realized volatility and BTC correlation for each asset. A sudden spike in volatility or correlation could mean it’s trading more like the high-beta pack (losing its independent resilience).
- On-chain health metrics: e.g., Bitcoin’s percent supply last active 1+ year (a proxy for hodling – currently near ATH, bullish if stays high), Monero’s number of shielded transactions, Maker’s total value locked and DAI supply, etc. Unusual changes in these can foreshadow price moves. - Derivatives signals: Keep an eye on funding rates for BTC, ETH, and any with futures (LINK has some futures markets, as do BTC, ETH, XRP, BNB). Extreme funding values (say, annualized +30% or –30%) are unsustainable – when our resilient asset sees that, it might soon do the opposite of the herd expectation.
By watching such metrics, one can get early warnings. For example, if Tron’s on-chain activity suddenly plummets or MKR’s buyback transactions cease on-chain, those would be alarms to possibly reduce exposure before the market realizes.
Ultimately, resilience is dynamic. The assets that were strongest this time should still generally be sturdier in future storms (given their characteristics), but investors must remain vigilant. Continuous due diligence – following developer updates, governance forums, macro news – is crucial. One should especially be on alert for any loss of a key support factor (like if Binance announced stopping BNB burns or if Ethereum staking participation dropped significantly – hypothetical examples).
Final thoughts
The October 2025 flash crash was an extraordinary stress test that revealed a hierarchy of crypto asset resilience. At the top were tokens buttressed by real utility, committed holders, and sound economics – the “shock absorbers” that endured the blow with comparatively minor and short-lived damage. We saw that Bitcoin’s liquidity and haven status, Tron and Monero’s loyal communities, Maker and Chainlink’s fundamental cash flows, XRP’s unique catalysts, and others’ prudent token designs collectively made the difference between a quick recovery and a prolonged drawdown.
A core insight is that structural factors – not hype – predict resilience. High staking participation, token burns or buybacks, diversified real-world usage, and even something as simple as being around and battle-tested for multiple market cycles all contributed to staying power. For instance, the fact that Maker could burn tokens using real income gave it inherent support, or that Tron’s blockchain kept humming with stablecoin transfers when trading markets seized provided a floor of demand. These are tangible factors, not just investor sentiment swings.
This isn’t to say these assets are invulnerable (they’re not), but when faced with a sudden vacuum of liquidity, they had anchors: be it a treasury that steps in, or users who stubbornly won’t sell, or arbitrageurs who see fundamental value. In contrast, many tokens that fared worst had little to fall back on – no revenue, no loyal user base, and often complex token inflation that amplified sell pressure. In a phrase, quality mattered.
For readers and crypto participants, applying these lessons means looking under the hood of projects, especially during calm times before the next storm hits. Which network has real usage? Which token’s supply is being steadily eaten away by utility or burns versus which will flood the market with unlocks? Who will still be holding this coin if it drops 50% – anyone, or will it be a ghost town of speculators?
As we move forward, the outlook has bright spots but also caution flags. On one hand, the cleansing of excess leverage and the rotation into sturdier assets could set the stage for a healthier market foundation (as some analysts said, perhaps this crash “reset the risk” and allowed true builders to shine). On the other hand, macro uncertainties like the trade war, regulatory decisions on ETFs and stablecoins, and global economic shifts will continue to inject volatility.
The next key dates to watch: - Late Oct 2025 – possible SEC decisions on crypto ETFs (especially XRP’s) that could boost or dent certain coins. - Late Nov 2025 – a scheduled large token unlock for a major project (not in our top 10 but something like an Arbitrum unlock) which could test how the market absorbs new supply. - Q1 2026 – broader macro events: central bank meetings, as well as Ethereum’s next protocol upgrade (if any significant one scheduled) and Bitcoin’s approaching halving in April 2026, which historically starts being priced in months prior. These could all shift the relative appeal of assets (e.g., Bitcoin halving hype might cause BTC to outperform for a while, or Ethereum upgrade news might bolster ETH).
In closing, the October crash taught us that even in one of the most dramatic meltdowns on record, there were havens of relative calm and quick rebirth. It reinforces a timeless principle: in markets, quality assets with clear value propositions tend to recover. As the saying goes, when the tide went out, we saw who had been swimming with trunks on. Those with solid “trunks” (be it tangible utility or prudent economics) emerged not just decent, but in some cases stronger than before.
For crypto participants, the homework is to identify those trunks in advance – to focus on projects with real technology and community substance, to diversify across different value drivers (store-of-value, DeFi revenue, privacy, etc.), and to remain agile. Crashes will happen again. By studying this leaderboard of resilience, one can better position to not only survive the next shock, but perhaps even capitalize on it – rotating into fundamentally sound assets when they’re temporarily on sale, and setting oneself up for the next phase, where durability and quality lead to disproportionate rewards.