XPeng delivered 42,013 vehicles in October, up by 76% year‑on‑year and placing the company back above the 40,000 monthly deliveries line for the second time this year, according to a report released on Monday by the company. XPeng has now gone twelve straight months without a monthly decline in deliveries, which stands out in a […]XPeng delivered 42,013 vehicles in October, up by 76% year‑on‑year and placing the company back above the 40,000 monthly deliveries line for the second time this year, according to a report released on Monday by the company. XPeng has now gone twelve straight months without a monthly decline in deliveries, which stands out in a […]

XPeng delivered 42,013 vehicles in October, rising 76% YoY

2025/11/04 04:40

XPeng delivered 42,013 vehicles in October, up by 76% year‑on‑year and placing the company back above the 40,000 monthly deliveries line for the second time this year, according to a report released on Monday by the company.

XPeng has now gone twelve straight months without a monthly decline in deliveries, which stands out in a Chinese EV market where most companies move up one month and drop the next.

XPeng included both its mainline models and the new Mona brand in this figure, without splitting out how many cars went to domestic buyers versus overseas, according to the report.

The return to the 40,000 range comes shortly after the launch of the Mona series, which began delivering in September, only weeks after the line was introduced in late August.

The Mona M03 sedan starts at 119,800 yuan ($16,812), with a 155,800 yuan version offering enhanced driver‑assist features. XPeng counted Mona sales together with its core lineup in the monthly tally.

Competition among Chinese EV brands intensifies

XPeng’s consistent deliveries arrive while Tesla faces unstable results in the same market. Tesla’s China wholesale figures came in at 67,886 units in July, 83,192 in August, and 71,525 in September.

Meanwhile, BYD recorded 436,856 deliveries in October, continuing to lead the market on total volume. However, this also represented a 12.7% decrease from October of last year.

In its third‑quarter earnings report last week, BYD reported a 32.6% year‑on‑year decline in profit, which was its largest plunge in history.

Nio delivered 40,397 vehicles in October, covering its main Nio brand along with its Onvo and Firefly budget‑tier brands. The core Nio brand rose from 13,728 units to 17,143, while Onvo came in at 17,342. The firm continues to distribute its volume across multiple pricing levels.

Xiaomi held deliveries at above 40,000 but did not disclose an exact breakdown for the month. Li Auto delivered 31,767 vehicles, a 6.4% decline from September. Li Auto had previously said the company was stabilizing sales after a marketing error earlier in the year. Geely’s Zeekr reported 21,423 vehicles, slightly higher than the 18,257 delivered in September.

Alongside sales reports, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has released draft safety standards requiring clearer and easier‑to‑use interior emergency door release mechanisms, including the way handles are designed and labeled. These draft standards are open for public comment through November 22.

Separately, in the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has requested detailed records concerning all model year, “2021 Tesla Model Y vehicles manufactured for sale or lease in the United States,” as well as “peer vehicles,” including Tesla Model 3 and Model Y vehicles from model years 2017 to 2022, and “systems related to opening doors including, door handles, door latches, 12VDC batteries, software,” and other components.

Tesla has until December 10 to turn over the information, and while can seek an extension on the deadline from NHTSA, the company may face fines of ”$27,874 per violation per day, with a maximum of $139,356,994″ if the company either fails to or refuses to “respond completely, accurately, or in a timely manner” to NHTSA’s information requests, the agency cautioned in its letter.

Get seen where it counts. Advertise in Cryptopolitan Research and reach crypto’s sharpest investors and builders.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

On November 3, the Balancer V2 protocol and its fork projects were attacked on multiple chains, resulting in a serious loss of more than $120 million. BlockSec issued an early warning at the first opportunity [1] and gave a preliminary analysis conclusion [2]. This was a highly complex attack. Our preliminary analysis showed that the root cause was that the attacker manipulated the invariant, thereby distorting the calculation of the price of BPT (Balancer Pool Token) -- that is, the LP token of Balancer Pool -- so that it could profit in a stable pool through a batchSwap operation. Background Information 1. Scaling and Rounding To standardize the decimal places of different tokens, the Balancer contract will: upscale: Upscales the balance and amount to a uniform internal precision before performing the calculation; downscale: Reduces the result to its original precision and performs directional rounding (e.g., inputs are usually rounded up to ensure the pool is not under-filled; output paths are often truncated downwards). Conclusion: Within the same transaction, the asymmetrical rounding direction used in different stages can lead to a systematic slight deviation when executed repeatedly in very small steps. 2. Prices of D and BPT The Balancer V2 protocol’s Composable Stable Pool[3] and the fork protocol were affected by this attack. Stable Pool is used for assets that are expected to maintain a close 1:1 exchange ratio (or be exchanged at a known exchange rate), allowing large exchanges without causing significant price shocks, thereby greatly improving the efficiency of capital utilization between similar or related assets. The pool uses the Stable Math (a Curve-based StableSwap model), where the invariant D represents the pool's "virtual total value". The approximate price of BPT (Pool's LP Token) is: The formula above shows that if D is made smaller on paper (even if no funds are actually withdrawn), the price of BPT will be cheaper. BTP represents the pool share and is used to calculate how many pool reserves can be obtained when withdrawing liquidity. Therefore, if an attacker can obtain more BPT, they can profit when withdrawing liquidity. Attack Analysis Taking an attack transaction on Arbitrum as an example, the batchSwap operation can be divided into three stages: Phase 1: The attacker redeems BPT for the underlying asset to precisely adjust the balance of one of the tokens (cbETH) to a critical point (amount = 9) for rounding. This step sets the stage for the precision loss in the next phase. Phase Two: The attacker uses a carefully crafted quantity (= 8) to swap between another underlying asset (wstETH) and cbETH. Due to rounding down when scaling the token quantity, the calculated Δx is slightly smaller (from 8.918 to 8), causing Δy to be underestimated and the invariant D (derived from Curve's StableSwap model) to be smaller. Since BPT price = D / totalSupply, the BPT price is artificially suppressed. Phase 3: The attackers reverse-swap the underlying assets back to BPT, restoring the balance within the pool while profiting from the depressed price of BPT—acquiring more BPT tokens. Finally, the attacker used another profitable transaction to withdraw liquidity, thereby using the extra BPT to acquire other underlying assets (cbETH and wstETH) in the Pool and thus profit. Attacking the transaction: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x7da32ebc615d0f29a24cacf9d18254bea3a2c730084c690ee40238b1d8b55773 Profitable trades: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x4e5be713d986bcf4afb2ba7362525622acf9c95310bd77cd5911e7ef12d871a9 Reference: [1]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985262010347696312 [2]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985302779263643915 [3]https://docs-v2.balancer.fi/concepts/pools/composable-stable.html
Share
PANews2025/11/04 14:00