October Price Forecast for Pi Network: Optimistic and Pessimistic Scenarios for PI
As October begins, Pi Network is set for a protocol upgrade while its coin battles to maintain a value near nine cents. On October 3, according to CoinGecko, PI was trading around $0.0888 after fluctuating between approximately $0.0861 and $0.0935 in the previous week. The potential for the price to rise to $0.115 or fall back to the historical low near $0.0706 hinges more on sustaining new buyer interest amid increased coin transferability than on the upgrade itself.
Summary
- On October 3, PI traded near $0.0888, with a reported daily volume of about $5.1 million.
- Protocol 28 is set to launch on October 16, following an upgrade deadline for nodes on October 13.
- A sustained break above $0.10 might lead to a target range of $0.10 to $0.115 as the best scenario.
- A drop below $0.08 could risk a return to the recorded low of $0.07059.
- Pi currently has 417,000 KYC cases and 497,000 wallet cases that don’t guarantee completed migrations or immediate sales.
The price ranges stated are speculative scenarios rather than guaranteed outcomes. The key trading bracket remains between $0.08 and $0.10, which has largely characterized PI’s activity since July. A breakout from this range necessitates substantial evidence: for upward movement, that would mean sustained trading and increased volume; for a downward shift, it would require failed support and ongoing selling pressure. These price extremes serve as points of testing rather than assertions that one must be achieved by the end of October.
October’s pivotal developments include Pi Network’s slated Protocol 28 and its new partnership with Open Standard. The former is a scheduled software update while the latter involves exploring how a stablecoin could foster rewards and utility within Pi’s ecosystem. However, neither event guarantees the demand for PI from buyers, nor indicates how much newly available supply will be sold by holders. This uncertainty presents challenges for making accurate price predictions.
The starting price limits prediction accuracy
CoinGecko’s market snapshot from October 3 highlighted PI at approximately $0.0888, with a circulating supply of about 11.24 billion coins, leading to a market cap close to $1 billion and daily trading around $5.1 million. These metrics are fluid and should be updated prior to publication, clearly noting the time of observation.
The trading volume represented about 0.51% of the stated market cap ($5.1 million divided by $1 billion). This ratio is not a liquidity indicator; exchange volumes can indicate repetitive trades of the same coins, and market cap denotes price multiplied by circulating supply, not cash readily available for purchases. Yet, this suggests that even minor shifts in the order book can be significant during notable events. Valuations approaching $1 billion contrasted with daily activity in the millions reflect variances in scale.
PI has seen trades at approximately 97% below its peak of $2.99, meaning reaching that high again would necessitate an over thirty-fold increase. Relevant references for October include the recent high around $0.0935, the key psychological barrier at $0.10, and the $0.08 level that has constrained trading. Previous analyses by Crypto.news of the $0.10 resistance highlighted past unsuccessful attempts in September and the impending upgrade. The central question is what factors may lead to either a successful breakout or a failure as October progresses.
A price report from late September showcased another unsuccessful rebound near $0.093, which serves as historical context for examining the initial resistance point, rather than a direct substitute for current chart evaluations. A price level that has been repeatedly rejected in September might yield later in October if the ordering dynamics shift.
No technical indicator is unbreakable. A price might briefly exceed $0.10 due to sparse offers, only to retreat below that threshold when holders decide to sell. A reliable confirmation would require sustained daily closes above this figure, with volume that does not diminish as the price scales upward. A one-day spike followed by a decline would leave the best-case scenario unvalidated, rendering the forecast subject to reevaluation.
What Protocol 28 modifies, and what it does not
According to Pi’s formal announcement, Protocol 27 was successfully implemented on the mainnet while Protocol 28 began testing in late September. Node operators must complete the upgrade by October 13, ahead of a planned mainnet activation on October 16. Upcoming changes will enhance how transaction data delays are processed and allow developers to update multiple smart contracts concurrently and modify stored application data more securely. Pi’s node page also displays requirements that mainnet nodes must upgrade to v28.
These enhancements present valuable improvements for developers and the network. A safer procedure for contract upgrades can facilitate easier application maintenance, while improved handling of transaction data delays fosters reliability. Nonetheless, a protocol upgrade alone does not compel merchants to accept PI nor ensure users will retain tokens instead of selling them. The perceived impacts on price will fluctuate based on the quality and volume of activity following the software alteration.
Three possible outcomes exist. The upgrade may proceed as planned with little immediate economic effect; it could face delays or issues that undermine confidence; or developers might rapidly deploy services capable of processing actual PI payments, retaining users. The initial scenario represents a technical success devoid of clear demand changes. The second scenario would be detrimental. The third scenario represents the optimal bullish perspective, necessitating solid evidence beyond just a successful network status update.
The October 13 upgrade deadline poses an early checkpoint. If many nodes do not transition as required, meeting the October 16 activation could be challenging. If the network achieves timely activation, the subsequent evaluation focuses on applications: new launches on the mainnet, recurring payments, and whether transactions use PI in ways that generate demand rather than circulating existing holdings.
The project has also released developer documentation and guidance for payment integration, as per their September developer update. This work alleviates some hurdles for developers but does not equate to an operational count of paying customers. The best-case scenario necessitates a measurable strategy linking tools to actual utility, not a public announcement regarding tools alone.
A partnership with a stablecoin doesn’t guarantee PI purchases
Pi has announced a partnership with Open Standard, the creators of Open USD (OUSD). The statement emphasizes the intention to explore providing rewards for Pioneers and enhancing the utility of OUSD across the Pi ecosystem, with further details forthcoming. Open Standard lists Pi Network among its partners and portrays OUSD as an asset for payments and financial activities. While these details affirm the partnership’s existence, they do not confirm a live integration of OUSD within a Pi application or a direct influx of OUSD users demanding PI.
There’s even a possibility of substitution. If a service prices items in traditional dollars while accepting OUSD, that might simplify payments without necessitating customers to possess PI beyond any associated fees or application requirements. Conversely, a product might associate OUSD settlements with PI staking, discounts, or other elements that incentivize acquiring the native coin. Both design avenues are plausible but undetermined in public quantifiable terms.
The review of Pi’s open mainnet in its inaugural year highlighted the disconnect between a considerable user base and verified economic use. This partnership with OUSD could close this gap if it spurs frequent transactions and a compelling rationale for using PI. A stablecoin partnership by itself fails to gauge either outcome effectively.
Open Standard’s OUSD may attract users through partnerships with various payment and technology companies. However, this wider network does not automatically direct increased activity to Pi. To accurately assess, one must consider the actual transactions within Pi, the count of returning users, and how PI is utilized in these transactions. Assuming a partner list will elevate PI’s value without accounting for the demand for its native coin could misinterpret the dynamics of a commercial network.
The timing also complicates October forecasts. A new partnership announced at the beginning of the month may capture immediate interest, but integrations, adoption, and sustained fee or staking requirements typically develop on different timelines. The bullish case can assert the potential for a credible near-term launch if established and executed. It cannot treat exploratory language as having immediate financial benefits for PI holders throughout October.
The supply argument falters under simple division scrutiny
The recurring discourse on supply merits an arithmetic review as it frequently justifies specific price calls. A Crypto.news feature on 2026 unlocks noted that approximately 1.21 billion PI was slated for release throughout the year, with an average rate of about 6.5 million per day. Both figures cannot coexist as averages for all 365 days of 2026. Dividing 1.21 billion by 365 yields roughly 3.32 million daily; multiplying 6.5 million by 365 provides an annual total closer to 2.37 billion.
This mismatch does not suggest either figure was fabricated; a 6.5 million daily average may reference a shorter timeframe, a changing tracker snapshot, or a distinct set of days; similarly, a 1.21 billion total may adopt a differing definition for unlocks. The concern lies in referencing both claims as forming an internally consistent schedule. For October, neither assures a dependable monthly total without a timestamped, wallet-level schedule and explicit definitions of which balances are locked, migrated, claimable, and transferable.
This is crucial since unlocked coins do not equate to immediate sell orders on exchanges. Holders might retain their PI, utilize it within applications, transfer it to others, or deposit it onto exchanges. Balances may become accessible following identity verification, through secondary migration steps, or upon lockup expiration. Making predictions based solely on the assumption that all unlocked assets will be sold leads to an inflated perspective on known supply pressures, while ignoring newly transferable balances results in an underestimation.
An accurate assessment for October should commence with changes in circulating and transferrable supply, followed by analyzing exchange deposits and order book depth, rather than multiplying an unverified daily unlock estimate by 31 and applying that to predict sales volumes. A publicized release schedule could significantly improve these forecasts. Until a reconciliation occurs with observed supply, assigning a precise dollar value to unlock selling in October lacks support.
It is possible to demonstrate sensitivity without claiming to predict outcomes. For instance, if an additional 100 million PI were to unlock during a scenario, a 5% share reaching exchanges would imply that 5 million PI entered; a 20% share would amount to 20 million PI. At the October 3 reference price of $0.0888, these figures would translate to an estimated value of approximately $444,000 for the 5 million and about $1.78 million for the 20 million. This exercise is based on stated assumptions rather than suggesting that 100 million tokens will unlock or that any specific proportion will be sold. Even if deposited, that does not equate to an immediate sale. This illustrates the necessity of understanding holder behavior alongside the total amount released.
In comparison, the reported trading volume around $5.1 million over a 24-hour period demonstrates inconsistency relative to market valuation. The larger hypothetical deposit could comprise roughly 35% of that daily turnover, assuming all trades occur at the reference price; in contrast, the smaller has a comparative value of about 9%. The actual price impact could vary if sellers distribute their orders over weeks while fresh bids come in, or conversely amplify if multiple holders decide to sell amid a thin order book. This is more a scale assessment than a definitive price-impact prediction.
To generate the actual calculation, a researcher would require a timestamped unlock distribution, identify the wallets receiving these unlocked assets, label exchange addresses appropriately, and avoid counting internal wallet transfers multiple times. A cohort that unlocks in October may not initiate its migration immediately; similarly, a migrated balance could remain locked or serve as collateral. Each distinct phase alters interpretation. Consolidating all situations as fresh sales would inflate results ahead of executing a market order.
A public source trail should clarify whether the schedule refers to gross locks expiring, net additions to transferable supply, or tokens entering exchange custody. These provide different numerators for analysis. If the denominator is circulating supply, there must be a clear provider and cutoff since data vendors treat migrated and locked balances differently. The aim here is not to render supply inscrutable; instead, it’s about employing a metric whose units and timestamp can withstand scrutiny.
KYC advancements enhance access, not an influx of buyers
Pi’s update on KYC and migration from September 17 indicated that more than 417,000 flagged accounts could advance after additional reviews, explicitly noting that these updates did not substitute for other necessary checks. A second technical solution was intended to assist the 497,000 fast-track wallet holders lacking enough PI for gas fees to claim migration balances, with the claimed implementation set for within a week of the announcement.
Neither figure represents individuals who have finalized migration in October. There may be overlaps within these two demographics, and a successfully migrated account does not automatically translate to a purchase intent. Rather, it might simply become a holder of previously earned coins, now capable of transferring or selling. Crypto.news’s in-depth KYC analysis substantiated the distinct stages of clearance, migration, transferability, and actual application spending. Each stage must be separately considered in price analyses.
Pi’s incremental second migrations provide another pathway for moving previously earned balances onto mainnet. An update from March revealed that over 119,000 users had completed second migrations to that date, with first migrations prioritized. This figure is historical and does not project the activity for October, indicating that the amount of newly transferable supply cannot limit itself merely to one KYC backlog segment.
The ideal circumstance for holders is that gaining access encourages users to apply PI in applications, engage repeatedly, and retain some balance. Conversely, the worst-case scenario would see the same process leading to exchange deposits without generating equivalent demand in applications. Both results stem from the same technical advancement, and a subsequent cohort report could delineate between them through demonstrated activity. Current public data does not enable this distinction.
Best case: $0.10 becomes a support level, not just a target
At the reference price of $0.0888 on October 3, the $0.10 mark represents a roughly 12.6% increase, while $0.115 signifies near a 29.5% rise. This arithmetic illustrates the scale of a potential $0.10 to $0.115 target range but does not justify why it would be achieved. True justification hinges on sustainable new demand and a supply flow that the market is capable of absorbing.
The sequence is crucial. PI would initially need to recover the recent $0.093 to $0.094 range that previously limited its trading. Thereafter, it must not only cross the $0.10 threshold but also maintain its position above this point amid routine profit-taking, rather than just spiking briefly following the upgrade. The reported spot volume should ideally rise from roughly $5 million recorded on October 3, without the entirety of the price movement depending on a fleeting period of low liquidity. The days following October 16 should reveal actual application use or indicate continuing buyer interest, as the announcement itself will not constitute fresh news at that juncture.
Integration of OUSD could aid sentiment if Pi and Open Standard disseminate clear implementation information. Such details would become significantly more pertinent for PI’s valuation if they exhibit a defined role for the native coin and showcase actual use rather than merely presenting an option for OUSD payments. While new access opportunities could influence liquidity, speculative listings should not factor into this October baseline unless explicitly validated by listings.
The contrary scenario holds considerable weight. A native coin may appreciate in advance of a network upgrade as speculators position themselves prior to the event, even before applications start generating revenue. The market might favor PI based solely on anticipation, causing it to exceed $0.115. This prospect is not constrained by logical design. Conversely, a short-lived speculative spike would not fulfill the criteria for sustained demand. Any practical disproof will manifest as a breakout that fails to hold above $0.10 in subsequent sessions, alongside a decline in volume.
Middle case: positive news keeps PI within its established range
The central trading range of $0.08 to $0.10 remains credible even if the node upgrade operates as intended. Successful software deployments can mitigate technical barriers, while the adoption of commercial applications may take longer. New users accessing balances might opt to sell into enthusiasm generated by existing traders, leading to a stalemate between buyers and sellers around familiar price boundaries.
This outcome can be misinterpreted easily. Should PI ascend to $0.099 after October 16 and conclude the month around $0.09, it does not necessarily imply failure of the upgrade; it might indicate that while the network changes were successfully achieved, they failed to substantially boost current demand for the coin. In contrast, a stagnant price trajectory does not equate to non-usage of applications. Price reflects market equilibrium, not directly correlating with app utilization.
The most insightful observation in this context would be whether the established range tightens or loosens. Frequent rebounds from $0.08 on considerable volume would signal that offers are being absorbed by demand. Conversely, repeated failures to break above $0.10 during thin trading activity might indicate buyers’ hesitance to pay premium prices. If both patterns develop, an October defined by stability is more plausible than dramatic assertions based strictly on the upcoming upgrade.
Overall market activity could overshadow project-specific matters. The influence of Bitcoin and general crypto liquidity can significantly affect PI’s price, irrespective of Pi’s network status. Therefore, an October review should evaluate PI in the context of broader market trends throughout the same timeframe. Outperformance linked to a documented event involving Pi affords stronger evidence of a PI-specific catalyst, rather than a collective price rise affecting nearly every asset.
The comparative analysis must be equitable. Measure PI’s percentage change from the reference price on October 3 to the closing price after the upgrade, then replicate the same time interval for Bitcoin and a broader crypto index. If PI achieves a 15% increase while the benchmark records a 14% rise, the incremental one percentage point diminishes the case for a value reassessment driven by Pi developments. Conversely, if PI rises 15% while the benchmark declines by 3%, the differential warrants careful scrutiny, although it still leaves questions about buyer intentions. This is a demonstrative methodology, not a foretelling of future returns.
This check applies equally in a downturn. A 10% drop for PI during a 12% overall market decline isn’t automatic blame against Protocol 28. However, a 10% fall concurrently with stable market conditions likely indicates supply issues or discontent specific to PI. It’s advisable to assess the trading behavior at the exchange level too, as a thin venue can suffer a misleading price dip that fails to represent broader market trends. A solitary market print at an outlier price cannot equate to steady trading conditions.
Volume must also have a context and source. CoinGecko aggregates across various exchanges, each possessing distinct order books and reporting procedures. A surge in volume following October 16 could signify widespread engagement, recurring arbitrage across venues, or short-term rotations among the same holders. To claim a stronger demand narrative, align price trends across multiple venues, scrutinize the depth at quoted prices, and ensure that elevated volumes persist on subsequent days. Token exchanges does not necessarily correlate with purchases of in-network products.
A similar distinction applies to the market cap, now nearing $1 billion. Assuming a fixed circulating supply of 11.24 billion, a rise from $0.0888 to $0.115 would elevate the market capitalization from about $998 million to around $1.29 billion. This approximate $295 million shift does not imply a requisite influx of $295 million into PI; it merely reflects the impact of adjusting the price of each circulating unit to the marginal trading value. Conversely, a fall to $0.0706 would adjust the same market cap to approximately $794 million without revealing the actual capital exiting the asset. Consequently, the circulating supply figure can fluctuate, necessitating real-time calculations.
Worst case: $0.08 breaks down, risking a return to lows
Trading around $0.0888 places $0.08 approximately 9.9% lower, while $0.0706 is nearly 20.5% below. This suggests that an illustrative downside band from $0.070 to $0.080 spans a considerable distance, with the lower margin sitting just beneath the CoinGecko’s all-time low. This serves as a stress scenario, not a prediction that holders will offload a specific amount of coins.
The trajectory leading to this could involve a clear fall beneath the floor of the range that fails to rebound swiftly. An influx of transferable PI to exchanges amid weakened demand could exacerbate this. A delay in the upgrade, a malfunction within applications, or disappointment regarding the OUSD arrangement’s scope could negatively influence market sentiment. As of October 3, none of these developments are confirmed; they serve as conditions to observe rather than accusations against the network.
The low reported trading volumes relative to market value complicate any price impact predictions. A $1 million sell order does not universally diminish the coin’s value by a fixed percentage, as depth and replenishment differ by venue and timeframe. Nor does a billion-dollar drop in market cap imply that a billion dollars vacated the asset. Market capitalization is shaped by the marginal price and the supply; it may vary much more significantly than the net cash flows that occur. A decline scenario that directly translates projected migration totals into precise price losses would reflect false precision.
This downside narrative becomes less convincing if PI reclaims $0.09 following a transient breach, if exchange deposits do not escalate with migration, or if repeat payment activity within applications rises. A definitive recovery above $0.10 with consistent volume could disprove the $0.070 to $0.080 bearish stretch for that period. The essence of developing a worst-case scenario is to explicitly denote what evidence could render it incorrect, just as clearly as detailing evidence that may substantiate its likelihood.
What insights October could provide
The forthcoming month will ascertain whether the node deadline on October 13 and the planned activation on October 16 are fulfilled. It will demonstrate how PI behaved prior to and following these events. It will also assess whether Pi successfully rolls out an OUSD-related product, clarifies the migration funnel, or discloses application payment metrics. However, it will not establish that a large registered community has transformed into a sustainable commercial economy based solely on a few days’ worth of market pricing activity.
Most beneficial would be disclosures linking user cohorts with applicable dates and measurement units: new users cleared for KYC, users who have completed migration, balances made transferable, first PI payments within applications, and repeat wallets involved in payments. An uptick in the initial two without evidencing demand through the last two would signify mere access expansion. Conversely, if app transactions rise while exchange deposits remain controlled, the most favorable case strengthens. Effectively, this is an empirical assessment that the project could facilitate for clarity.
These categories cannot be aggregated casually. One wallet might report 100 transactions while 99 other wallets have none. Reporting this as 100 distinct paying users would misrepresent actual adoption levels. A payment initiated between a user’s own wallets may be counted as transfer activity, but it does not equate to merchant sales. Furthermore, a merchant receiving PI and instantly selling it may facilitate payment usage while concurrently adding selling pressure within exchange markets. Meaningful insights would account for distinct paying wallets and recipients, trace repeat activity over several weeks, and limit internal transfers or testing where feasible. Revenue generated in PI, calculated at transaction-time values, would offer an additional measure.
Those revelations would not resolve every pricing dilemma. A functional app could elevate its transaction volumes while the coin value drops if sellers flood the market with excess PI at the same moment. Likewise, a lackluster app economy might coincide with an appreciating coin as speculators pre-position ahead of notable events. The purpose of this analytical flow is to prevent price fluctuations from being misconstrued as proof of genuine adoption, or an adoption announcement being misrepresented as assurance of a price floor. Each assertion necessitates independent verification.
October presents an opportunity for constrained evaluation. Document the software activation, the dated changes in supply, genuine active payment users if disclosed by the project, and PI’s pricing in parallel with broader market movements. A bullish case that withstands all these indicators is more credible than one relying on a single declaration. Conversely, if the information is not disclosed, the outcome should be deemed uncertain rather than reliant on speculative demand estimates.
At the close of the month, the results should be assessed against the specified conditions rather than strictly the concluding price. Should PI hit $0.11 in a brief market surge and then retract to $0.085, the best-case goal was met, but the underlying thesis faltered. If it holds around $0.095 while confirmed usage increases, the price forecast may have shortchanged at $0.10, yet the underlying demand could be improving. A responsible projection articulates both potential price movements and factors that might alter that outlook.
As of October 3, the prevailing evidence suggests a cautious trading range between $0.08 and $0.10. A verified upgrade, a genuine hold above $0.10, and measurable consumer demand could elevate that range. A drop below $0.08 as transferable supply rises would prompt examination of the historical low once more. This conclusion aligns as closely as the verified data facilitates.
Key points to monitor
- October 13 node deadline: Verify if the necessary Protocol 28 software has been adopted across mainnet nodes.
- October 16 activation: Confirm if the upgrade proceeds as scheduled and assess any changes in application activity afterward.
- $0.093 to $0.10 zone: Observe for consistent closures and trading volumes rather than transient touches against this resistance.
- $0.08 support: Sustained losses below this threshold could renew focus on the $0.07059 all-time low.
- Comparative supply and demand: Contrast dated changes in transferrable PI and exchange deposits against repeat application payments, if disclosed.
Frequently asked questions
What is the best-case PI price for October 2026?
An illustrative band between $0.10 and $0.115 requires maintaining a steady move above recent resistance, a successful upgrade, and proof of ongoing demand. This outcome is conditional and not guaranteed.
What is the worst-case PI price for October 2026?
An illustrative range from $0.070 to $0.080 becomes pertinent if the support level is breached during conditions of weak demand. The all-time low recorded was $0.07059 based on the October 3 CoinGecko snapshot.
When is the Pi Protocol 28 upgrade scheduled?
Node operators are instructed to upgrade by October 13 ahead of the anticipated mainnet activation on October 16, 2026. Verify successful completion against forthcoming official updates.
Will Protocol 28 automatically raise PI’s price?
No. While it adjusts network and developer functionalities, a sustained price increase is contingent upon buyers or economic usage that’s sufficient to absorb the available supply.
Is OUSD already live on Pi Network?
Pi has announced a partnership to explore the integration and utility of OUSD for rewards. However, their October announcement did not confirm any live integration on the Pi Network or a direct role for PI in it.
Are 914,000 users about to sell PI?
No. The aggregate of 417,000 KYC cases and 497,000 wallet cases presumes no overlaps and that all holders have migrated. Pi has not verified either assumption or any intentions regarding sales.
How many PI tokens will unlock in October?
No verified total for October was established based on primary data. Repeating annual and daily figures in reporting do not reconcile when aimed at a full-year average, and an unlock does not equate to a sale.
What would invalidate the bullish October scenario?
A spike above $0.10 that quickly reverses with diminishing volume, without a demonstrable uptick in repeat usage or stable demand, would undermine the bullish thesis. Please note that this is educational commentary, not financial advice.
Disclaimer: This article is meant solely for informational and educational purposes, and it does not constitute financial or investment advice. The figures could reflect regulatory filings and disclosures that may change over time. This content does not serve as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always conduct your own due diligence. All information is accurate as of October 3, 2026.