Pi Network enters October with a scheduled protocol upgrade and a coin still struggling to hold nine cents. PI changed hands near $0.0888 on October 3, according to CoinGecko, after a week in which it traded between roughly $0.0861 and $0.0935. The difference between a move to $0.115 and a return to the record low near $0.0706 is less about whether the upgrade goes ahead than whether new buyers stay while more coins become transferable.
Summary
- PI traded near $0.0888 on October 3, with about $5.1 million in reported daily volume.
- Protocol 28 is scheduled for October 16, after an October 13 node upgrade deadline.
- A sustained $0.10 break could open a conditional $0.10 to $0.115 best case.
- Losing $0.08 could bring the $0.07059 recorded low into a conditional worst case.
- Pi’s 417,000 KYC cases and 497,000 wallet cases are not completed migrations or immediate sales.
The price levels in this piece are scenarios, not a model’s promise of a month-end close. The central range is $0.08 to $0.10, the band that has contained much of PI’s trading since July. A move outside it needs evidence: sustained trading and larger volume for the upside, or a failed floor and persistent sell pressure for the downside. The extremes are stress points to test, not a claim that October must reach either one.
October’s two identifiable project stories are Pi Network’s announced Protocol 28 schedule and its new Open Standard partnership. The first is a dated software event. The second is an agreement to explore how a stablecoin could support rewards and use across Pi’s ecosystem. Neither release tells us how many people will buy PI, how much will be spent in applications, or how much newly available supply holders will sell. That missing balance is what a price prediction must confront.
The starting price leaves little room for a careless forecast
CoinGecko’s October 3 market snapshot showed PI around $0.0888, a circulating supply near 11.24 billion coins, a market capitalization near $1 billion and roughly $5.1 million of reported trading over 24 hours. Its seven-day band was approximately $0.0861 to $0.0935. These are moving figures and should be refreshed immediately before publication, with the observation date attached.
The volume was around 0.51% of the stated market value: $5.1 million divided by $1 billion. That ratio is not a liquidity score. Exchange volume can include the same coins changing hands repeatedly, while market capitalization is price times circulating supply, not a pool of dollars ready to buy. Still, it signals why a relatively modest shift in orders can matter around a widely watched event. A billion-dollar valuation and a few million dollars of daily activity describe different scales.
The recorded all-time low is $0.07059. PI trades about 97% below its $2.99 peak, which means a return to that peak would require a rise of more than 30 times from here. The useful October references are nearby: the recent high around $0.0935, the round $0.10 barrier and the $0.08 area that has held much of the range. Crypto.news’ recent analysis of the $0.10 test documented the September failures and the approaching upgrade. This feature asks what would make a break persist or fail through the rest of October.
The late-September PI price report recorded another failed rebound near $0.093. That is useful historical context for the first obstacle, not a substitute for a current chart reading. A level repeatedly rejected in September can still yield in October if the balance of orders changes.
No technical marker is a rule imposed on the market. A price can cross $0.10 briefly because offers thin out, then return below it when holders sell into the move. A useful confirmation would be multiple daily closes above the level with spot volume that does not collapse as price rises. A rejection after a one-day spike would leave the best case unconfirmed. That makes the forecast falsifiable.
What Protocol 28 changes, and what it does not
Pi’s official announcement says Protocol 27 completed on mainnet and Protocol 28 reached testnet in late September. Node operators have until October 13 to upgrade, before a planned mainnet activation on October 16. The described changes improve handling of delays in transaction data and let developers upgrade groups of smart contracts together and modify stored application data more safely. Pi’s node page independently displays the requirement that mainnet nodes move to v28.
These are meaningful developer and network improvements. A safer contract upgrade path can make applications easier to maintain; better handling of transaction-data delays can improve reliability. But a protocol upgrade does not itself compel a merchant to accept PI or a user to keep tokens instead of selling them. The date gives traders something to anticipate. The price effect depends on the quantity and quality of activity after the code change.
There are three distinct outcomes. The upgrade may complete on schedule with little immediate economic impact. It could encounter a delay or operational problem that damages confidence. Or developers may quickly ship services that collect actual PI payments and retain users. The first is a software success without a clear demand shock. The second is a negative event. The third is the stronger version of the bullish thesis, and it needs evidence beyond a successful network status message.
The October 13 deadline is a useful early test. If many nodes have not upgraded, the October 16 date may become harder to meet. If the network activates on schedule, the next test is not the version number but applications: new releases on mainnet, repeated payments, and whether those transactions use PI in ways that create demand rather than merely circulate coins among existing holders.
The project has shipped developer documentation and payment integration guidance, according to its September developer update. That work lowers friction for builders. It is not a count of paying customers. The best case should require a measurable bridge from tools to use, not a press release about tools.
A stablecoin partner is not a PI purchase order
Pi said it is partnering with Open Standard, the company behind Open USD, or OUSD. Its wording is specific: it will explore rewards for Pioneers and broader utility for OUSD across Pi’s ecosystem, with details to come. Open Standard lists Pi Network among its partners and describes OUSD as an asset for payments and financial activity. These facts support the existence of the relationship. They do not show an OUSD integration live in a Pi app, a launch date for one, or a direct flow of OUSD users into PI demand.
There is even a possible substitution question. If an application prices goods in dollars and accepts OUSD, that could make payments easier without requiring the customer to hold PI beyond any network fees or application-specific role. Alternatively, a product might pair OUSD settlement with PI staking, discounts or other functions that create a reason to acquire the native coin. Both are possible design paths. The partnership announcement does not choose between them in publicly measurable terms.
The first-year review of Pi’s open mainnet described the gap between its large user community and proven economic use. The OUSD arrangement could narrow that gap if it produces recurring transactions and a specific reason to use PI. A stablecoin partnership by itself cannot measure either result.
Open Standard’s own OUSD product may gain users through other partners, including payment and technology companies. That broader network does not transfer their activity automatically to Pi. Count the actual transactions on Pi, the number of repeat users, and the specific use of PI in those flows. Claiming that the partner list alone will take PI to a price target would mix a commercial network’s reach with a native coin’s demand.
The timing also limits an October forecast. A partnership announced around the start of the month can lift attention immediately, but a deployed integration, adoption and sustained fee or staking demand usually arrive on different schedules. The bull case can credit a credible near-term launch if one is announced and delivered. It cannot treat exploratory language as already producing October revenue for PI holders.
The supply claim fails a basic division test
The recurring supply argument deserves an arithmetic check because it is often used to justify precise price calls. One crypto.news feature on 2026 unlocks said roughly 1.21 billion PI were scheduled for the year and described a pace around 6.5 million a day. Those two figures cannot both be the average across all 365 days of 2026. Divide 1.21 billion by 365 and the daily average is about 3.32 million. Multiply 6.5 million by 365 and the full-year total is about 2.37 billion.
The discrepancy does not prove either input was invented. A 6.5 million daily figure might refer to a shorter period, a changing tracker snapshot or a subset of days. A 1.21 billion annual figure might use a different definition of unlocks. The problem is citing both as if they form one internally consistent schedule. For October, neither yields a reliable monthly total without a dated, wallet-level schedule and a clear definition of which balances are locked, migrated, claimable and transferable.
This matters because unlocked coins are not identical to immediate exchange sell orders. A holder may retain PI, spend it in an app, send it to a family member or deposit it on an exchange. Some balances can become available after identity checks, others after second migrations, and others after lockup expiry. A prediction based on automatic selling from every one of these events will overstate known supply pressure. A prediction that ignores newly transferable balances will understate it.
An honest October measure would start with the change in circulating and transferable supply, then inspect exchange deposits and order-book depth, not multiply an unverified daily unlock estimate by 31 and call the result expected sales. A public release schedule could improve the forecast materially. Until one is reconciled with observed supply, a precise dollar value of October unlock selling is not supportable.
There is a way to show the sensitivity without pretending to know the outcome. If an additional 100 million PI became transferable during a hypothetical period, a 5% exchange deposit share would mean 5 million PI arrived at venues; a 20% share would mean 20 million. At the October 3 reference price of $0.0888, those amounts have a quoted value of about $444,000 and $1.78 million. This is arithmetic on stated assumptions, not a projection that 100 million tokens will unlock or that any specific share will be sold. Even a deposit is not necessarily a sale. The range illustrates why the holder’s behavior matters as much as the gross amount released.
Compare that exercise with the roughly $5.1 million reported 24-hour trading volume, while remembering that reported volume does not measure buy-side capacity. The larger hypothetical deposit would equal about 35% of that one-day turnover if all of it traded at the reference price; the smaller would equal about 9%. Actual price impact could be less if patient sellers distribute orders over weeks and new bids arrive, or greater if many holders sell into a shallow book on the same day. The ratio is a scale check, not a price-impact formula.
To make the real calculation, a reporter would need a dated unlock distribution, the wallets receiving unlocked balances, exchange address labels, and a way to avoid counting internal wallet moves twice. A cohort that unlocks in October might not migrate until later. A migrated balance might remain subject to a separate voluntary lock. Coins deposited to an exchange might serve as collateral. Each stage changes the interpretation. A spreadsheet that counts all three as separate fresh selling would inflate the result before a market order was placed.
The public source trail should state whether the schedule describes gross locks expiring, net additions to transferable supply or tokens entering exchange custody. These are different numerators. If the denominator is circulating supply, identify its provider and cutoff because data vendors may treat migration and locked balances differently. The point is not to make supply unknowable. It is to use a measure whose units and timestamp survive scrutiny.
KYC progress opens access, not a buy queue
Pi’s September 17 KYC and migration update said more than 417,000 people whose accounts had been flagged as possible duplicates could move forward after another review. It expressly said the change did not replace other required checks. A second technical remedy was intended to unblock 497,000 fast-track wallet holders who lacked enough PI for the gas fee needed to claim migration balances. The stated deployment was within a week of that announcement.
Neither number is a count of people who completed migration in October. The two groups may overlap. And a successfully migrated person is not necessarily a buyer. They may become a holder of previously earned coins with the ability to transfer or sell. Crypto.news’ long read on the KYC funnel separated clearance, migration, transferability and actual application spending. Those stages must remain distinct in a price analysis.
Pi’s gradual second migrations add another route by which previously earned balances reach mainnet. In a March project update, Pi said more than 119,000 users had completed second migrations at that time and that first migrations retained priority. That number is a historical status, not an October forecast. It shows why the newly transferable supply cannot be reduced to one KYC backlog cohort.
The best case for holders is that new access brings people who use PI inside applications, return to those applications and leave some balance unspent. The worst case is that the same process creates exchange deposits while applications fail to generate offsetting demand. These are opposing outcomes from the same technical improvement. An eventual cohort report showing completed migrations and repeat payment activity would distinguish them. The current public numbers do not.
Best case: $0.10 becomes a floor, not a headline
At the October 3 reference price near $0.0888, $0.10 is about 12.6% higher. $0.115 is about 29.5% higher. The arithmetic defines the scale of a best-case $0.10 to $0.115 band; it does not supply the reason for reaching it. That reason would be sustained new demand and a supply flow the market can absorb.
The sequence matters. PI would first have to recover the roughly $0.093 to $0.094 area that recently capped trading. It would then have to cross $0.10 and hold it through ordinary profit-taking, not just touch it after an upgrade-related burst. Reported spot volume should increase from the roughly $5 million October 3 level without the entire move depending on a brief illiquid window. The days after October 16 would need to show actual use or continuing buyers, because the announcement itself would no longer be new information.
An OUSD integration could help sentiment if Pi and Open Standard publish clear implementation details. It would be more relevant to PI’s valuation if those details identify a native-coin role and show use rather than only an OUSD payment option. New exchange access could change liquidity, but no unannounced listing belongs in this October base case. Treat it as a separate conditional catalyst only if a venue confirms it.
The opposing case is strong. A native coin can rise ahead of a network upgrade as traders position for a date even before applications generate revenue or payment activity. The market might reprioritize PI on anticipation alone and overshoot $0.115. This scenario band is not a ceiling imposed by physics. Yet a short-lived speculative surge would not meet the test of lasting demand. The practical invalidation is a breakout that fails to stay above $0.10 on subsequent sessions with fading volume.
Middle case: good news leaves PI in its range
The central $0.08 to $0.10 range is plausible even if the node upgrade works as designed. A successful software deployment can reduce technical obstacles while development and commercial adoption take longer. New users gaining access to balances can sell into enthusiasm from existing traders. Buyers and sellers may cancel each other near the familiar boundaries.
This outcome is easy to misread. If PI jumps to $0.099 after October 16 and closes the month around $0.09, the upgrade has not necessarily failed. It may have delivered its stated network changes without a measurable rise in current demand for the coin. Conversely, a quiet price chart does not prove applications are unused. Price is a market clearing result, not a direct app-usage counter.
The most useful observation in this case is whether the range becomes firmer or weaker. Repeated rebounds from $0.08 on stable volume suggest bids are absorbing available supply. Repeated rejections near $0.10 while trading activity thins suggest buyers remain reluctant to pay more. If both occur, a range-bound October is a more defensible conclusion than a dramatic call based solely on the scheduled upgrade.
A marketwide move could overwhelm these project-specific factors. Bitcoin and broader crypto liquidity can change PI’s price even if Pi’s own network status does not. That is why an October postmortem should compare PI with the wider market over the same dates. Outperformance around a documented Pi event is stronger evidence of a PI-specific catalyst than a rise shared by almost every coin.
The comparison needs to be fair. Take PI’s percentage move from the October 3 reference price to the close after the upgrade, then calculate the same interval for bitcoin and a broad crypto index. If PI gains 15% while the benchmark gains 14%, the extra one percentage point is a thinner case for a network-driven repricing than the headline 15% suggests. If PI gains 15% while the benchmark falls 3%, the gap merits closer investigation, though it still does not prove which buyers acted. This is an illustrative method, not a report of future returns.
The same check works on the downside. A 10% PI decline during a 12% market slide need not indict Protocol 28. A 10% decline during a stable market is more likely to draw attention to PI-specific supply or disappointment. Examine exchange-level prices and volume as well, because a thin venue can report a dramatic wick that was never representative of the broader market. One print at an outlier price is not the same as sustained trading there.
Volume itself needs a denominator and a source. CoinGecko aggregates exchanges, each with different books and methods of reporting activity. A spike in volume after October 16 could reflect broad participation, repeated arbitrage between venues or short-term churn by the same holders. To make a stronger demand claim, compare the price trend across several venues, the depth near the quoted price and whether volume remains elevated on the following days. App payments are another separate measure. A token can trade furiously without buying one product inside its network.
This distinction also applies to the roughly $1 billion market capitalization. At a fixed 11.24 billion circulating supply, a move from $0.0888 to $0.115 would lift the arithmetic valuation from about $998 million to about $1.29 billion. That approximately $295 million change is not a requirement for $295 million of new cash to enter PI. It is the effect of repricing every circulating unit at the marginal traded price. Conversely, a fall to $0.0706 would lower the same arithmetic valuation to about $794 million without showing how much capital actually left. The supply figure itself can change, making a live calculation necessary.
Worst case: $0.08 gives way and the low returns
From roughly $0.0888, $0.08 is about 9.9% lower; $0.0706 is about 20.5% lower. An illustrative $0.070 to $0.080 downside band therefore spans a meaningful move, with its lower edge just below CoinGecko’s recorded all-time low. It is a stress case, not a forecast that holders will sell a known number of coins.
The pathway would involve a clear break below the range floor that does not recover quickly. More transferable PI reaching exchanges during weak demand could deepen that move. An upgrade delay, application problem or disappointment about the scope of the OUSD arrangement could harm sentiment. None of those events is confirmed as of October 3. They are conditions to monitor, not allegations about the network.
Low reported trading volume relative to the market value makes price impact harder to infer. A $1 million sell order does not necessarily lower the coin by a fixed percentage, because depth and replenishment vary by venue and hour. Nor does a billion-dollar market-cap decline mean a billion dollars left the asset. Market capitalization is the marginal price multiplied by supply; it can change far more than the net cash that traded. A bear case that translates a hypothetical migration total directly into a precise price loss would be false precision.
The downside argument weakens if PI reclaims $0.09 after a brief breach, if exchange deposits do not rise with migration, or if repeat application payments increase. A decisive recovery above $0.10 with sustained volume would invalidate the $0.070 to $0.080 stress case for that period. The point of a worst case is to name the evidence that would make it wrong as clearly as the evidence that would make it plausible.
What October can actually prove
One month can show whether the October 13 node deadline and October 16 planned activation were met. It can show how PI traded before and after the event. It can show whether Pi publishes a working OUSD-related product, a clearer migration funnel or application payment statistics. It cannot prove that a large registered community has become a lasting commercial economy from a few days of market price action.
The most valuable new disclosure would tie cohorts together with dates and denominators: users newly cleared for KYC, users who completed migration, balances made transferable, first PI payments in applications and repeat paying wallets. A rise in the first two without proving demand in the last two would expand access alone. If app activity grows while exchange deposits remain manageable, the best case gains substance. This is an empirical test the project could make easier for everyone.
The categories cannot be added casually. One wallet might make 100 payments while 99 others make none. Reporting 100 transactions as 100 paying users would inflate adoption. A payment between a user’s own wallets could count as transfer activity without a merchant sale. And a merchant that receives PI but instantly sells it may create use for payments while adding matching sell pressure in exchange markets. Useful disclosure would count distinct paying wallets and distinct recipients, identify repeat activity across weeks, and exclude testing or internal transfers where possible. Revenue in PI, translated at the transaction-time price, would provide another denominator.
That information would not settle every price question. A useful app could expand its payment volume while the coin falls because sellers release much more PI at the same time. A weak app economy could coincide with a rising coin as speculators position ahead of an event. The purpose of the funnel is to stop a price move from being offered as proof of adoption and an adoption announcement from being offered as proof of a price floor. Each claim needs its own measurement.
October gives a bounded trial. Record the software activation, the dated supply change, the number of genuinely active payment users if the project discloses it, and PI’s price relative to the wider market over the same interval. A bullish case that survives all four is stronger than one resting on a single announcement. If the information is not released, the proper finding is uncertainty, not an invented demand estimate.
The month-end outcome should be judged against the stated conditions, not only the closing price. If PI reaches $0.11 in a one-day squeeze and returns to $0.085, the best-case target was touched but the thesis failed. If it holds $0.095 while verified use grows, the price forecast missed $0.10 but the underlying demand case improved. A responsible prediction says both what price might do and what fact would change its mind.
As of October 3, the visible evidence favors a cautious $0.08 to $0.10 central band. A confirmed upgrade, a genuine $0.10 hold and measurable demand could shift it upward. A break below $0.08 as transferable supply grows would bring the historical low back into view. That is as precise as the verified data allow.
What to watch
- October 13 node deadline: Check whether the required Protocol 28 software was adopted across mainnet nodes.
- October 16 activation: Confirm the upgrade on the network and inspect any change in application activity afterward.
- $0.093 to $0.10 zone: Watch for repeated closes and spot volume, not a one-minute touch of resistance.
- $0.08 floor: A sustained break shifts attention toward the $0.07059 recorded low.
- Supply against use: Compare dated changes in transferable PI and exchange deposits with repeat app payments, if disclosed.
FAQ
What is the best-case PI price for October 2026?
An illustrative $0.10 to $0.115 band requires a sustained move above recent resistance, a successful upgrade and evidence of continuing demand. It is conditional, not a promised close.
What is the worst-case PI price for October 2026?
An illustrative $0.070 to $0.080 band becomes relevant if the range floor fails amid weak demand. The recorded all-time low was $0.07059 on the October 3 CoinGecko snapshot.
When is the Pi Protocol 28 upgrade scheduled?
Pi told node operators to upgrade by October 13 before a planned mainnet activation on October 16, 2026. Confirm completion against subsequent official updates.
Will Protocol 28 automatically raise PI’s price?
No. It changes network and developer capabilities. A lasting price effect would require buyers or economic use sufficient to absorb available supply.
Is OUSD already live on Pi Network?
Pi announced a partnership to explore OUSD rewards and utility. Its October announcement did not confirm a live integration on Pi or a direct role for PI in it.
Are 914,000 users about to sell PI?
No. Adding the 417,000 KYC cases and 497,000 wallet cases assumes they do not overlap and have all migrated. Pi did not confirm either premise or a sale intention.
How many PI tokens will unlock in October?
A reliable October total was not verified from primary data. Annual and daily figures repeated in coverage do not reconcile as a full-year average, and an unlock is not a sale.
What would invalidate the bullish October case?
A move over $0.10 that quickly reverses on fading volume, with no measurable increase in repeat use or durable buying, would undercut the demand thesis. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of October 3, 2026.
Be the first to comment