Japan's bond yield surge signals a shift in global financial dynamics, impacting debt sustainability and altering international investment flows.

The post Japan’s bond market yield hits 3% for first time this century appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Xverse's new staking model could democratize Bitcoin yield access, potentially increasing STX demand but also introducing new risks.

The post Xverse launches self-custodial Bitcoin staking with pooled access for all users appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Despite strong AI-driven profits, investor concerns over high capital expenditures and domestic economic challenges led to stock sell-offs.

The post Chinese companies report 26% profit surge in Q2 2026 as AI boom clashes with falling stock prices appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bhutan's significant BTC outflows could impact market stability and raise questions about sovereign crypto strategies and transparency.

The post Bhutan transfers 400 BTC to unlabelled address, leaving sovereign holdings at 518 BTC appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Ochieng's La Liga debut highlights growing opportunities for African talent in European football, potentially inspiring future generations.

The post Real Sociedad beats Elche 3-1 as Job Ochieng makes La Liga debut appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Alleged White-Hat Hackers Withdraw 4,000 bitcoin from Blockstream’s Liquid Network Federation Reserves

The Liquid Network said Sunday that purported white-hat hackers withdrew about 4,000 bitcoin, worth about $320 million, from the federation wallet that backs L-BTC. Bridge nodes were disabled, and the sidechain was paused. Other issued assets, including USDT, DePix and RWAs, were unaffected, the official account said on X.

The Liquid Network is a federated sidechain of Bitcoin, founded by Adam Back’s Blockstream. The Liquid chain issues a variety of assets such as LBTC, which it backs with BTC on the Bitcoin main chain, held in a large multisig of 15 corporate and known members. 11 of the 15 members need to sign a valid multi-signature transaction to move coins from the treasury. Before the hack, the treasury held over 4200 BTC; after the hack, Blockstream’s proof of reserves page reports a little over 207 BTC left. 

The hackers withdrew 4,019.4 BTC from the reserve address in a peg-out transaction using the SideSwap Peg-out Authorization Key. SideWap is a bridge exchange and a member of the Liquid Federation. While details on the mechanism of the hack are not confirmed yet, it appears an inflation bug on the LBTC side chain was exploited by the hackers to create over 4,000 LBTC that did not exist before, and cash them out for on-chain bitcoin from the federation. Because the transaction appeared as valid, given the consensus bug, the federation members’ HSM security servers signed the BTC withdrawal transaction, worth roughly 320 million at the time. 

The hacker moved the funds to an address ending in 6gyqjlte, from which they quickly signed a new transaction with a message on the OP_RETURN arbitrary data field saying “we are whitehats. contact us on chain.” Those coins were still at that address at the time of writing.

A small mainnet transaction to the hacker address followed by an OP_RETURN saying “Please contact security@blockstream.com”, presumably from a Blockstream public address, though that remains unconfirmed. A later OP_RETURN spend from the hacker address carried “Please contact us on Signal @m671aw.70”, however, this may be spam and does not share a link to the address with the stolen funds.

In response to the breach, exchanges were told to pause L-BTC deposits and withdrawals. Bridge nodes on the Liquid Network have been paused, limiting access to the side chain, which continues to produce blocks. 

JAN3 CEO Samson Mow said Aqua’s Liquid features were affected and that on-chain bitcoin still worked. Other wallets in the industry that use the Liquid Network are expected to be affected. Users holding LBTC now effectively have their savings at risk, since the underlying BTC is currently not redeemable. Given the private nature of the Liquid chain, user onchain analytics are scarce and not much public information is known about how much LBTC is held by retail users versus corporations of Blockstream itself. Nevertheless, should the funds not be returned, it would be a heavy blow to the Liquid Network’s user base.

Users of LBTC don’t have many options but to wait for conversations with the hackers to resolve. Given the size of the hack, it would be difficult for the hackers to get away with stealing all that bitcoin, though perhaps not impossible. What may happen is that the hackers ask for a finder’s fee and return the majority of the funds. 

This post Alleged White-Hat Hackers Withdraw 4,000 bitcoin from Blockstream’s Liquid Network Federation Reserves first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Hargreaves Lansdown Reverses Course, Rolls Out Bitcoin Trading 

British financial services firm Hargreaves Lansdown is letting retail investors buy bitcoin — nearly one year after it said the cryptocurrency was “not an asset class.” 

The Bristol, UK-based investment firm’s website said it was offering bitcoin and other crypto exchange-traded notes to investors. ETNs are investment funds which trade on stock exchanges and track the prices of digital assets. 

It comes after the firm, which manages nearly £173 billion (over $233 billion) in assets, last year warned customers about buying bitcoin. 

“While longer-term returns of Bitcoin have been positive, Bitcoin has experienced several periods of extreme losses and is a highly volatile investment — much riskier than stocks or bonds,” the firm said at the time. 

“The HL Investment view is that Bitcoin is not an asset class, and we do not think cryptocurrency has characteristics that mean it should be included in portfolios for growth or income and shouldn’t be relied upon to help clients meet their financial goals.” 

Now, a number of ETNs tracking the price of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are available. The firm warns users that “crypto ETNs are considered high-risk and may be volatile.”

U.S. regulator the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2024 approved bitcoin exchange-traded funds for investors after a decade of saying no to the products. 

The funds had the most successful debut in the history of ETFs as investors previously unable to buy exposure to the asset class rushed in to buy the products. 

Run by top asset managers and banks like BlackRock, Fidelity, and Morgan Stanley, the investment vehicles now collectively manage over $100 billion in assets. 

This post Hargreaves Lansdown Reverses Course, Rolls Out Bitcoin Trading  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Trezor Breach Worse Than Reported: Another 67,000 US Customers Exposed

Hardware wallet manufacturer Trezor has said that a data breach first announced last month is worse than originally reported. 

The Prague, Czech Republic-based company said Friday that an additional 67,000 U.S. customers had their names, emails, phone numbers, shipping addresses and order numbers leaked. The leaked data came from orders made between November 2019 and August 2021, according to Trezor. 

Trezor first announced in August that data from 11,742 customers from the U.S., UK, Sweden, Colombia, Brazil, Italy, and Portugal had been exposed — with names, emails, phone numbers and shipping addresses leaked. 

Another 1,947 customers just had their names, cities and emails exposed in the breach. 

In Friday’s announcement, Trezor said that its third-party fulfillment partner, ShipMonk, had falsely reassured the company about deleting customer data. 

In a statement to Bitcoin Magazine, a Trezor spokesperson said: “We had no reason to expect it: throughout our entire relationship with ShipMonk we repeatedly requested and received written assurance confirming the deletion of that data, in line with our contract, our data policy and our past communications.”

“It should not have existed to be exposed,” the statement added.

ShipMonk did not immediately responded to Bitcoin Magazine’s questions. 

Trezor first announced in August that the data had been leaked because ShipMonk experienced “unauthorized access to their systems containing customer data.” 

The company added that it had directly emailed all customers involved in the breach. Trezor’s parent company, SatoshiLabs, told Bitcoin Magazine last month that it was investigating the incident. 

Trezor is one of the most popular Bitcoin hardware wallet solutions, and also has support for storing other cryptocurrencies. 

Bitcoiners’ personal data has been targeted by cybercriminals in the past: back in 2020, an unauthorized party accessed popular hardware manufacturer Ledger’s e-commerce and marketing database, leaking over 1 million email addresses and the personal contact data of nearly 10,000 customers. 

At the start of this year, customers reported receiving emails from Global-e, Ledger’s payment partner, that a data breach at its cloud systems leaked sensitive customer data. 

This piece has been updated to include additional commentary from Trezor.

This post Trezor Breach Worse Than Reported: Another 67,000 US Customers Exposed first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

El Salvador Isn’t Buying Bitcoin With Public Money, Says IMF 

El Salvador has not used public funds to accumulate bitcoin since the International Monetary Fund’s last review of its loan program, the fund said Thursday. 

In a report Thursday, the body said that the Central American country had instead received bitcoin from private donations, citing documentation from the government. It added that “no further Bitcoin accumulation beyond the documented donations is expected.”

El Salvador made headlines in 2021 when it became the first country in the world to make bitcoin legal tender. Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele in 2022 said the country would buy one bitcoin per day but it was never clear where the money was coming from — or if he was actually buying at all. 

“Documentation has been provided verifying that Bitcoin accumulation since the first review reflects private donations and that no public resources were used,” the IMF release said. 

“Understandings were also reached on steps to modernize the legal, regulatory, and supervisory framework for digital assets and to further strengthen the governance and risk-management arrangements for public-sector crypto-asset holdings. Going forward, no further bitcoin accumulation beyond the documented donations is expected.”

The report added that public participation in the government-sponsored bitcoin wallet has been largely wound down, with majority ownership and operational control handed to a private operator. 

El Salvador in 2021 debuted a state-sponsored wallet called Chivo for its citizens as part of its plan to increase bitcoin adoption in the country. 

“IMF staff thank the Salvadoran authorities for the constructive discussions and excellent collaboration,” the report added. 

The IMF El Salvador entered a $1.4 billion loan agreement at the end of December but the fund asked for the country to scale back certain aspects of its bitcoin strategy. 

Institutions like the World Bank and the IMF have long criticized President Bukele’s Bitcoin law, which also asked businesses to accept the cryptocurrency if they had the technological means to do so. 

President Bukele in 2024 admitted that Salvadorans weren’t using the cryptocurrency to buy things as expected, but always boasted that the government was still stacking sats. 

Since launching a crime crackdown to tackle the country’s notorious crime gangs, murder rates in El Salvador have plunged. The country was once the most dangerous place in the Americas but President Bukele is now trying to turn it into a tech hub. 

Crypto companies like Tether have since relocated to its capital, San Salvador. 

This post El Salvador Isn’t Buying Bitcoin With Public Money, Says IMF  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Dips Below $80,000 on Strong US Jobs Report

Bitcoin slid Friday after a better-than-expected labor report showed that the U.S. job market accelerated in August. 

The leading cryptocurrency was recently trading for close to $79,764 after dropping as low as $78,706 earlier in the morning in New York. It’s currently down over 1% over a 24-hour period. On Thursday, the coin soared above $82,000. 

The Federal Reserve is typically more likely to raise interest rates when the labor market is strong, because more people employed means more spending, and more spending can push inflation up. 

Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh last week gave his first major speech as head of the U.S. central bank and said he had “more work to do” to fight inflation. Bitcoin has typically done well in a low-interest rate environment. 

Traders currently view a U.S. Federal Reserve interest rate hike at the upcoming September 15–16 policy meeting as roughly a 50% to 60% probability. 

But U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday demanded the Federal Reserve slash interest rates. 

Writing on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said: “Lower the interest rates because the U.S.A. is a much stronger credit than it was just a short time ago!”

He added: “We should have the LOWEST RATE of any country in the World, like ‘the old days.'”

Bitcoin has decoupled from stocks recently as investors have renewed concerns around dollar debasement. 

The cryptocurrency started surging last month, after the U.S. Treasury Department said it would more than double the size of its government debt repurchases. The coin had its best run in three years and third best August ever.  

The much-talked about debasement trade is back in the spotlight, and bitcoin has been trading in lockstep with gold, according to analysts. The so-called debasement trade is when investors buy an asset as a way to hedge against a currency losing value. 

News dropped last month that U.S. public debt exceeded $40 trillion for the first time too. Excessive debt also undermines confidence in the dollar, making assets like bitcoin and gold attractive. 

This post Bitcoin Dips Below $80,000 on Strong US Jobs Report first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Lending protocol Moonwell's proposed rate changes could cut monthly interest accruing on bad debt by about 85%, according to Anthias Labs' projection. Its Sept. 4 recovery update leaves access to USDC and a return to borrowing as separate hurdles.

Moonwell said in the update that governance proposal MIP-X66 had entered its vote collection period. The package combines changes to market risk settings, interest-rate models and the use of protocol reserves to recapitalize the USDC market.

The Sept. 4 announcement described what would happen after execution, without confirming reserve transfers or setting a supplier repayment timetable. MIP-X66's subsequent execution status and actual USDC transfers remain unverified.

Moonwell relayed its risk adviser's estimate that the proposed rate changes across seven Base markets would reduce monthly interest on outstanding bad debt from about $338,785 to $50,273, assuming balances and utilization remain unchanged.

The projected saving is $288,512 a month, or roughly 85%. Governance delegate PGov cited the same dollar reduction in supporting MIP-X66.

Those figures measure slower growth in debt already on the books. They do not measure cash recovered, principal forgiven or money returned to suppliers. Even under the projection, about $50,273 in monthly interest would continue accruing.

The reserve component addresses a different problem. It proposes withdrawing available protocol reserves on Base and OP Mainnet for conversion to USDC and recapitalization. Moonwell said the withdrawals would apply only to protocol-owned assets, without withdrawing or transferring user funds.

Supplier cash and borrowing remain separate

The recovery effort follows the Aug. 27 MAMO market incident on Base. Anthias's Aug. 28 post-mortem described inflated collateral accounting combined with oracle-price manipulation and estimated roughly $9.1 million in residual borrower obligations at its Aug. 27 evidence cutoff. That included about 2.35 million USDC in remaining borrower debt, rather than a current measure of withdrawal liquidity.

A Sept. 4 governance request illustrates the questions facing newer suppliers. Forum user Dr_Bahmani said they deposited a five-figure USDC position through Mamo on Sept. 2 without a prominent incident-specific warning and subsequently faced effectively unavailable withdrawal liquidity. Those are the depositor's allegations.

The user asked for separate figures covering market cash, performing and impaired debt, reserves and recoveries, alongside a policy for post-incident deposits and fair withdrawals. The request explicitly did not assert that a compensation program existed or that a final haircut had been determined.

Moonwell also said in its Sept. 4 update that security firm Zero Shadow had been retained to assist recovery efforts, with potential options still being evaluated. The update provided no recovered-cash amount or guarantee of full supplier repayment.

Borrowers face another condition: Moonwell said MIP-X66 could help establish the conditions to consider reopening Base borrowing, but any re-enablement would remain subject to further risk assessment. Execution alone would therefore not amount to an announced borrowing restart.

The post DeFi lender proposes bad-debt fix, but user USDC funds remain locked appeared first on CryptoSlate.

ARK Invest and Glassnode have put a new number on blockchain capture risk: the smallest group of block-production entities needed to cross a protocol-relevant control threshold.

Their joint scorecard, published Sept. 1, put the threshold at three entities for Bitcoin and Ethereum and 19 for Solana. The same framework placed Bitcoin first in its composite decentralization ranking. The apparent tension reflects different forms of network exposure. The coalition needed to disrupt consensus is one risk measure; ownership, infrastructure, software, auditability and exit speed describe other routes to pressure a network.

Institutions considering a blockchain as settlement infrastructure must define the failure they need to survive before selecting a metric.

What the 3/3/19 result measures

The report calls the measure a critical resilience threshold. It asks how many of the largest entities must coordinate to pass a concentration point governing block production or voting power.

The inputs change by network. Bitcoin weights hash rate attributed to mining pools. Ethereum and Solana weight stake, while their dashboards may classify a liquid-staking protocol, exchange, distributed validator network, underlying operator or individual validator as the relevant entity. Protocol rules then determine what a given percentage can accomplish.

A seven-day Bitcoin mining snapshot on Sept. 6 attributed 26.88% of blocks to Foundry USA, 16.91% to AntPool and 15.25% to F2Pool. The three pools coordinated block templates for 59.04% of observed production, consistent with the report's three-pool result.

Pool share remains distinct from miner ownership. Individual miners supply work to a coordinator and can redirect that hash rate. The report estimates that a miner could leave a 1% Bitcoin position in roughly 30 seconds by switching off hardware. This mobility makes pool concentration important for short-term censorship and template selection while leaving ultimate control of the machines more dispersed.

Ethereum highlights the classification problem from the other direction. Rated Network, an Ethereum validator analytics provider, listed Lido at 21.17%, SSV at 16.56% and Binance at 7.77% in its Sept. 6 pool view. The same table described Lido as 544 entities. One label can therefore represent a protocol, hundreds of operators or both, depending on the grouping.

Ethereum's own threat model adds another distinction. Official protocol documentation says at least 33% of stake can delay finality. More than 50% can censor transactions and control short-range fork choice. At least 66% can finalize a preferred chain and alter finalized history. Each attack maps to a different threshold.

Solana's coefficient also changes with stake distribution. Solana Compass, an independent network dashboard, showed a Nakamoto coefficient of 18 on Sept. 6. ARK and Glassnode reported 19, while the Solana Foundation's June 2025 health report, using April 2025 data, recorded 20.

Solana Compass defines the coefficient as the fewest validators whose combined stake reaches 33.4% of voting power. The Foundation links that coalition to censoring blocks or stopping consensus. A value of 18 means that this specific disruption requires coordination across more top validators than a count of three would suggest. Shared ownership, stake sources, hosting, jurisdiction and software create separate exposures.

The dependencies that reshape capture risk

Infrastructure can give nominally separate entities a correlated failure mode. A data-center operator, cloud platform, government or network carrier can affect many nodes or validators together, even when the consensus coefficient looks widely distributed.

Bitcoin's node footprint illustrates how measurements can shift with the crawler. The joint report cited 63% of Bitcoin nodes operating behind Tor. A Clark Moody network dashboard showed 12,959 Tor nodes among 26,837 reachable nodes on Sept. 6, or 48.3%. Different node populations and collection methods can produce materially different shares. In either case, Tor usage speaks to node visibility and geographic resilience, while mining pools remain the direct block-production measure.

Ethereum hosting data varies for the same reason. The report cited roughly 20% of nodes on AWS. Rated Network's host view showed AWS at 14.4% of measured validator hosts. Ethernodes, an execution-layer node crawler, tracks another slice of the network and separates Amazon infrastructure across several ISP labels. A single AWS percentage loses meaning unless the node population and provider taxonomy travel with it.

Solana exposes the performance side of the tradeoff. High-throughput validators generally operate in commercial data centers. The Solana Foundation's dated 2025 report counted more than 100 providers, with TeraSwitch and Latitude hosting 45.70% of stake between them. Solana Compass's current broader view counted 437 data centers. The large facility count coexists with a sizable stake concentration among the leading providers.

Client software creates a second common dependency. Ethereum's client-diversity guidance explains that independent implementations reduce the blast radius of a shared bug. Rated showed Geth at 50.17% of measured execution clients. On Solana, the Foundation reported about 92% of stake using Agave/Jito and about 7% using Firedancer or the hybrid Frankendancer in April 2025. These figures measure exposure to a shared codebase, a failure mode separate from deliberate collusion.

Exit speed determines how long concentrated influence can persist. Bitcoin miners can redirect work without waiting for a protocol queue. Ethereum validators follow a rate-limited exit process. ARK and Glassnode's estimate of weeks applies to stressed conditions. On Sept. 6, beaconcha.in's live queue showed an empty validator exit queue and a withdrawal estimate near one day. Ethereum's withdrawal documentation explains that the delay moves with demand.

During coercion, the separation becomes practical. Hash power can leave a pool quickly when miners defect. Stake can remain tied to a validator during a congested exit queue, even when a liquid-staking token trades freely. Market liquidity and protocol exit provide different escape routes.

How institutions should read the scorecard

An institutional decentralization review can pair each threat with the corresponding measure:

• Transaction censorship or finality disruption calls for stake or hash-rate concentration at the relevant protocol threshold, with transparent entity grouping.
• Coordinated legal pressure and infrastructure outages call for validator and node maps by provider, jurisdiction and network operator.
• Software faults call for client-share and shared-codebase analysis.
• Persistent capture calls for beneficial ownership, delegation sources and the time required to withdraw or redirect resources.
• Independent verification and recovery call for the cost of running a verifier and reconstructing network state.

The joint report's composite ranking favors Bitcoin because the framework combines auditability, ownership dispersion, geographic resilience, exit fluidity and other dimensions. Solana's 19-entity result, now 18 on one live dashboard, describes one form of coordination risk.

The figure describes the largest-validator coalition needed to cross Solana's measured voting threshold. An institutional decision also requires the rest of the map, including who supplies the stake, where the machines run, which software they share, how quickly participants can leave and how independently users can verify the ledger.

The post Solana beats Bitcoin on one key metric, but a single software bug could still take down the network appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Australia’s financial intelligence regulator AUSTRAC said Sept. 7 that it canceled, suspended or refused to renew 45 remittance and virtual asset provider registrations over the past year, highlighting how failures under the registration regime can cost businesses permission to operate.

The disclosure covers both sectors, with AUSTRAC saying the actions removed those businesses from its registers. AUSTRAC CEO Brendan Thomas said businesses with canceled registrations can no longer operate.

AUSTRAC also linked its earlier cancellation of GetCoins, a virtual asset service provider, to disruption of alleged cryptocurrency investment scams. The regulator identified the business as BA Digital Ventures Pty Ltd, trading as GetCoins. Its registration decision record dates the cancellation to June 4, 2026, placing the decision three months before the September announcement.

AUSTRAC said it worked with the National Anti-Scam Centre on GetCoins following customer complaints. It requested information about the provider’s operations to assess its ability to manage money laundering risks.

The regulator said GetCoins was allegedly exploited by organized cryptocurrency investment scams. AUSTRAC said its work with the anti-scam center and the cancellation helped disrupt organized investment scam activity.

AUSTRAC described alleged exploitation of the provider by scams, without establishing that GetCoins itself organized them. The disclosure reports disruption of activity, but gives no amount recovered for customers or criminal finding against the provider.

Registration controls access to the market

AUSTRAC’s guidance says businesses providing digital currency exchange or virtual asset services must be registered. Losing that registration therefore removes the permission needed to provide those services.

The regulator says it can refuse an application, suspend or cancel registration, or refuse renewal if it considers a business an unacceptable money laundering, terrorism financing or other serious crime risk. It can also impose registration conditions where it identifies unacceptable risk.

The powers apply at different points in a provider’s relationship with the regulator: an application can be refused before registration, while an existing registration can face suspension, cancellation or nonrenewal. GetCoins appears in the cancellation category of the official record.

Across the annual actions, AUSTRAC cited problems ranging from insufficient capacity to begin or continue trading and dormant or inactive businesses to insolvency, inadequate registration and failures to report material changes. Significant money laundering or terrorism financing risk was also among the grounds it described.

Those are reasons given for the broader enforcement activity, rather than a list of findings against GetCoins. The announcement gives no breakdown of the 45 by sector or type of decision. The figure cannot be read as 45 crypto firms losing registration through cancellation alone.

The post Australia cancels registration of crypto provider GetCoins following customer scam complaints appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has pushed back against predictions that artificial intelligence could trigger a 50% Bitcoin crash within two years.

The debate began after Silicon Valley investor and AI-risk commentator Liron Shapiro said he sees a 50% probability that Bitcoin will fall more than 50% over the next two years because AI undermines what investors believe are the network’s security and robustness guarantees.

However, Buterin took the other side of this position, saying:

Buterin argued that Bitcoin should be able to handle security failures that do not require social consensus, including attacks affecting clients, mining pools and other network infrastructure. He also placed a very low probability on AI producing a fundamental break in Bitcoin’s hashing functions or proof-of-work system.

He said he would normally offer Shapiro a wager on the outcome, but his existing crypto holdings already amount to effectively making that bet with roughly 90% of his net worth. Buterin also suggested the same argument should apply to Ethereum.

The disagreement captures a growing divide over what increasingly capable AI systems mean for crypto security.

Shapiro’s argument does not require AI to break Bitcoin’s underlying cryptography. A wave of attacks that exposes weaknesses investors previously assumed were difficult or impossible to exploit could be enough to damage confidence, even if developers eventually repair the vulnerabilities.

Buterin is making a different calculation. He expects most AI-driven security failures to remain fixable and believes defenders will eventually benefit from the same technological advances attackers are using.

AI attacks are already testing crypto defenses

Evidence from across the crypto industry suggests the threat behind Shapiro’s warning is already becoming operational, even without a breakthrough against Bitcoin’s underlying cryptography.

In August, Bitcoin swap provider Boltz indefinitely suspended its service after months of automated, AI-assisted probing led to several contained exploits and began moving faster than its small development team could patch vulnerabilities.

Boltz said its non-custodial architecture protected customer funds, but the company absorbed losses from the exploits and eventually concluded it could no longer safely run the service.

The episode showed how AI could pressure the infrastructure surrounding Bitcoin without compromising proof-of-work or breaking the network’s cryptography. Attackers instead used automation to repeatedly search for weaknesses faster than defenders could investigate, patch, and deploy fixes.

That is the type of threat security executives expect to spread as offensive AI capabilities improve.

Deddy David, chief executive of blockchain security firm Cyvers, previously told CryptoSlate that the financial exposure from AI-powered crypto attacks could eventually reach hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.

“If AI can identify vulnerabilities at scale across core internet infrastructure, crypto will be one of the first markets to feel the impact,” David said.

The risk extends across wallets, bridges, exchanges, smart contracts and the software used to operate blockchain networks. Those systems provide attackers with considerably more potential entry points than Bitcoin’s core consensus mechanism itself.

The distinction is central to the disagreement between Buterin and Shapiro, as AI does not have to break SHA-256 to cause serious damage across the Bitcoin economy.

The unresolved question is whether those attacks remain problems developers can contain through upgrades and stronger defenses, as Buterin expects, or become severe enough to undermine the security assumptions investors have priced into Bitcoin.

Crypto and tech firms are racing to arm the defenders

The response from the broader technology industry increasingly resembles an arms race to ensure defensive AI develops at least as quickly as offensive capability.

Anthropic has restricted public access to its Claude Mythos model because of its ability to autonomously discover and weaponize software vulnerabilities.

The company has instead directed those capabilities toward defenders through Project Glasswing, an initiative involving technology companies and financial institutions including Amazon Web Services, Google, Microsoft and JPMorgan Chase.

The program uses Mythos Preview to identify and repair vulnerabilities in critical systems before malicious attackers equipped with similarly capable models can find them.

Anthropic has committed as much as $100 million in usage credits to the effort.

Meanwhile, the defensive push has since widened beyond individual companies.

More than 100 organizations, including Google, Microsoft, Anthropic and OpenAI, have signed an open letter warning governments and companies that AI-enabled cyberattacks are likely to become substantially more widespread and sophisticated within months.

Banks, payment companies, and major technology firms, including Capital One, Mastercard, Visa, Adobe, Oracle, and IBM, also joined the call.

The signatories argued that existing cybersecurity practices will not be sufficient as AI systems become more capable, particularly across historically under-resourced critical infrastructure.

They called for governments and technology companies to provide advanced defensive AI and security testing to organizations including hospitals and water utilities.

Crypto faces the same race, but with an additional complication: many of its systems hold immediately transferable financial assets and operate continuously on publicly visible infrastructure.

That makes the dispute between Buterin and Shapiro difficult to settle simply by asking whether AI can “break Bitcoin.”

The more immediate question is whether attackers gain a decisive advantage during the period before defensive tools, auditing practices and network infrastructure catch up.

The post Vitalik Buterin now confident AI won’t break crypto, betting 90% of his net worth appeared first on CryptoSlate.

A Sept. 5 proposal would let some Ethereum nodes accept privacy transactions that exceed a shared validation allowance, without ensuring those transactions travel across the public network. The proposed 100,000-gas guarantee remains below the proof-verification cost reported in a new privacy benchmark.

The open change to EIP-8141, Ethereum’s proposed Frames transaction design, was submitted by contributor AnkushinDaniil. It would turn the existing validation maximum into a common floor: nodes would have to propagate qualifying transactions within it, while capable nodes could accept more expensive ones locally. The proposal remains under review.

For Tornado Cash and RAILGUN designs studied in the benchmark, replacing off-chain relayers with public submission requires proofs that nodes will accept and pass along. Allowing some nodes to accept heavier transactions would not guarantee wider network support.

The proof still exceeds the allowance

The current EIP-8141 draft caps signature checks and execution in the initial validation phase through payment approval at 100,000 gas. Gas measures computational work here, rather than a fixed fee in dollars. The limit is intended to contain node workload and denial-of-service exposure.

A Sept. 2 benchmark by mmjahanara reports an optimized Groth16 proof verifier requiring 190,628 gas. Its cryptographic pairing check alone accounts for 181,000 gas, already above the proposed public allowance.

The full model reports minimums of 211,828 gas for a single-note spend and 351,828 for an eight-note spend. These modeled minimums combine verifier measurements with estimated overhead and a 20,000-execution-gas charge per nullifier, an identifier used to prevent spending a note twice. CryptoSlate has not independently rerun the benchmark.

That accounting differs from the current EIP-8250 companion draft. It charges fresh nonce keys to state gas, a separate budget, rather than execution gas. The benchmark’s totals therefore describe its model, not verified costs under the latest combined proposals. That accounting difference does not remove the reported verifier’s execution-cost gap.

Benchmark author mmjahanara recommends at least 250,000 gas for typical optimized transactions. That recommendation has not been adopted, and it would remain below the model’s eight-note total.

The model also assumes application changes: moving non-verification work into later frames, optimizing verifiers and compressing proof inputs. The model’s SHA-256 compression option increases the work required to generate proofs on users’ devices.

For users, a larger allowance would address one obstacle. EIP-8250 still preserves one pending public-mempool transaction per sender, another constraint for privacy designs sharing an address.

Public propagation is also distinct from block validity. EIP-8141 allows transactions outside its public rules into local or private mempools. Separately, the informational EIP-8369 proposal describes future rules to enforce transaction inclusion, including for custom or direct submission. It requires a binding protocol extension.

The practical decision is how to accommodate privacy-proof validation while bounding node work. The September proposal offers optional flexibility at individual nodes. Guaranteed public access for the studied privacy designs would still require accommodating their proof costs across the network.

The post Ethereum’s privacy push hits a numbers problem: one proof needs nearly twice the proposed gas allowance appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Anyone who lost crypto assets in 2026 mostly lost them to a stolen key rather than to a programming error. On September 4, 2026 the trade service crypto.news drew up the balance for the first eight months: at least $1.3 billion in damage across DeFi, and for the first time since records began, compromised private keys rank ahead of flaws in smart contract code. For you as an investor that shifts the question you need to ask. It now points at who holds the keys and how many of them it takes to move your balance. Whether an application has been audited is only half the answer.

Stolen Private Keys Overtake Smart Contract Bugs: What the 2026 Numbers Show

A private key is the string of characters used to sign a transaction; whoever holds it can dispose of the associated balance, regardless of who owns it. That property is exactly what makes it the most rewarding target.

The shift shows up in two independent surveys. crypto.news puts total DeFi damage for the first eight months of the year at a minimum of $1.3 billion, drawing on analyses by CertiK and TRM Labs. Blockscout, which operates a blockchain explorer, dated the tipping point as early as July 21, 2026: in May 2026, compromised accounts and stolen keys accounted for more than half of all DeFi attacks by number of incidents for the first time.

The two surveys count differently, one by loss amount and the other by incident count. That they still point the same way is the real finding. In addition, the Rekt.news loss list records more than thirty exploits above three million dollars for 2026.

Why the Number of Incidents Matters More Than the Record Sum

Large individual losses pull the statistics upward and say little about your own risk. The incident count says more: it describes how often an attack route works at all. A route that works every week gets reused against smaller targets once the big ones have been cleared out.

What a Compromised Key Actually Is and How It Goes Missing

Compromised means the key is still there, but a second party knows it as well. Nothing feels broken, nothing reports an error, and the loss only becomes visible once the balance is gone.

The routes to that point are rarely spectacular in technical terms. Malware on the computer where a wallet file sits. Login details from a data breach that happen to fit an account because the same password was used more than once. A number swap at the mobile operator, in order to intercept a confirmation text message. A doctored development component that a team pulls in unchecked. And the plainest variant, which works all the same: somebody poses as support and asks for the recovery phrase.

For 2026 Blockscout adds a case that shows the range: at MetaMask, according to the report, an employee with a North Korean background was involved in development for around a month before being removed. What all these routes have in common is that they target the human being and not the blockchain.

Drift, KelpDAO and AFX Trade: Three Cases Where the Key Was the Way In

Three documented incidents make the pattern tangible, and in none of them was a hole in the published contract code the trigger.

At Drift Protocol, around $285 million disappeared on April 1, 2026. On the account given by crypto.news, the attackers had worked their way toward an administration key over a period of months and then completed the outflow in 128 seconds. Preparation took months; execution took a good two minutes.

At KelpDAO, a bridge connection via LayerZero was hit on April 18, 2026. Figures for the scale of the loss differ slightly: crypto.news gives around $290 million, Blockscout around $292 million. Both houses attribute the incident to actors with North Korean links; crypto.news assigns the TraderTraitor group from the Lazarus orbit at least $575 million together with the Drift case, roughly 44 percent of all losses for the year.

The third case sat closer to European users. At the perp DEX AFX Trade on Arbitrum, around $24.15 million flowed out on July 22, 2026. cryptoticker.io reported the incident on July 24, 2026 with a loss of around $24 million; the more precise figure comes from the annual balance drawn up by crypto.news.

Coldcard: How a Firmware Flaw Turned Self-Custody Into a Single-Key Risk

The case that shaped the 2026 debate most strongly concerned, of all things, a device built for self-custody. A flaw in the firmware of a hardware wallet meant that the recovery phrases it generated were predictable. The loss total grew over weeks as more and more affected addresses surfaced: TRM Labs puts it at around $116 million, while crypto.news lists the case at around $130 million as of July 30, 2026. Early reports at the end of July were still well below that.

For you the lesson matters more than the sum. A device that stays offline and never touches the internet protects you against remote access. It does not protect you against a key that was already weak when it was generated. Anyone who generated a phrase on such a device during the affected period should treat it as exposed and move the balance to a newly generated phrase; the steps are set out in our guide to generating a new seed after the firmware flaw.

Why a Passed Code Audit Says Nothing About the Safety of Your Balance

An audit is an examination of the published contract code by a specialist house. It states that none of the weaknesses looked for were found in that code at the time of the review. On the question of who keeps the keys that administer this contract, and how, it says nothing.

Ronghui Gu, co-founder of the audit house CertiK, put it to crypto.news in a single sentence: a protocol can pass a flawless code audit and still lose millions because an administration key was compromised. The audit badge on an application's home page therefore describes one section of the ground, and specifically the section that in 2026 was no longer the most dangerous.

The Question to Ask Instead

Rather than looking for the audit badge, it pays to look at the administrative rights: is there an administration access that can move funds or swap out contracts? Does it sit on a single address or on an address with several authorized signers? And is there a time lock that lets a change take effect only after a waiting period? Serious projects answer this in their documentation. Where the answer is missing, that is itself an answer.

Single-Verifier Configuration: The Quiet Single Point in Bridges and Cross-Chain Applications

A verifier is the entity that confirms a message from one blockchain is genuine on another. In a single-verifier configuration, one entity alone does that. If it fails or is taken over, there is no second opinion to object.

crypto.news puts the share of LayerZero applications running in this setting at 47 percent. This is no flaw in the sense of a hole; it is a deliberate default that saves costs. For you it means this: when you send a balance across a bridge, the security of that transfer may hang on a single confirmer rather than on the blockchain you actually trust.

Multisig and MPC: How to Do Away With the Single Key

The most effective lever against the theft of a key is to make the single key redundant. Two established methods exist for that.

Multisig stands for an address that requires several signatures before a transaction becomes valid, two out of three deposited keys for instance. One stolen key is then no longer enough, and one lost key does not lock you out either.

MPC stands for multi-party computation. Here the complete key never exists in one place at any point; several participants compute the signature together from their shares. The result resembles multisig, but on the blockchain it looks like an ordinary single address.

Both come at a price. Multisig means more devices, more backup copies and more effort with every payout. MPC generally ties you to a provider whose software manages the shares. For small amounts that effort is often out of proportion; from the order of magnitude where a loss would hurt, the ratio reverses. Which devices can be combined for such a setup and what they cost is set out in our hardware wallet comparison. For the portion of your holdings you move daily, a software wallet remains the more practical choice.

Hardware Wallet, Software Wallet or Regulated Custodian: Where Your Holdings Belong

There is no single form of storage that is right for every amount. What makes sense is a split by purpose, and you can settle it in an afternoon.

The amount you trade or pay with belongs in a software wallet on your phone or in an exchange account. The attack surface is largest there, which is why only what you could absorb losing should sit there. Long-term holdings belong on a device that stays separate from your everyday computer, and above a sum that would hurt, on an arrangement requiring several signatures.

For part of your holdings a supervised custodian can also be the right answer, particularly if you do not trust yourself with key management. Since the MiCA transition period ended on July 1, 2026, only licensed providers may offer custody in the EU, and the licence can be verified publicly. That relocates the risk without removing it: you swap the risk of your own key for the risk of the provider. How heavily Bitcoin is weighted in your portfolio makes no difference to this decision, incidentally; the custody question arises equally for every position.

Five Checkpoints for Your Own Setup

The following points cost you about an hour together and cover the routes by which keys actually went missing in 2026.

First, take stock. Write down which addresses and accounts hold your balance and which key controls each of them. If a single string of characters controls more than half your holdings, you have found the single point this article is about.

Second, the origin of the recovery phrase. Check which device and which firmware version your phrase was generated on. If that falls in a period for which the manufacturer has acknowledged a flaw, you move rather than wait.

Third, the mobile number. Wherever a confirmation runs by text message, set up a porting lock or a customer password with your operator and switch to an authenticator app as well. Swapping the number is one of the cheapest attacks there is.

Fourth, passwords from data breaches. If you use a password for an exchange account that you have already used somewhere else, replace it. Crypto providers lost customer data through service partners several times in 2026; the combination of a known address and a known password is precisely the lever.

Fifth, a dry run. Imagine your everyday computer were in someone else's hands as of today. Could you still reach your balance, and would the attacker fail to? If you answer no to either question, you have your next task.

What This Check Does Not Do

It does not protect you against a flaw in a protocol you use, nor against a custodian failing. It clears away the attack route that was the most frequent by incident count in 2026. That much, and no less.

Checking Your Key Risk: What to Take Away

1. Find your single point. Go through your addresses and mark the ones where a single key controls an amount that would be painful for you. For that part of your holdings, look at a device with separate storage; the models and their prices are in the hardware wallet comparison.
2. Separate everyday use from holdings. What you move stays in a wallet on your phone; what stays put goes elsewhere. Which software wallets suit the everyday portion is shown by the software wallet comparison.
3. Check the licence before you deposit. If you want part of your holdings held in custody, look first at whether the provider has a valid EU licence. Which houses meet that is listed in the overview of regulated crypto exchanges.

(As of September 7, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Every L-BTC in circulation is currently backed by roughly 0.047 Bitcoin held in the Liquid Federation's reserve. Measured directly on September 7, 2026 at 12:39 UTC against the network's two public endpoints: 197.47190204 BTC in reserve stand against 4,205.01883617 L-BTC issued. That works out to 4.70 percent backing and a shortfall of 4,007.55 Bitcoin, or roughly $319 million (274 million euros) at the CoinGecko price recorded in the same minute.

You do not have to take anyone's word for this figure. The Liquid Network publishes its reserve and its circulating supply through an open interface, each request takes seconds, and the division is simple arithmetic. How that works, what the number says about your holdings and what it explicitly does not say is set out below. We wrote up the incident itself separately on September 7: Liquid Network hack: $320 million in Bitcoin walked out. What follows is the check you can run yourself.

How Much Bitcoin Backs L-BTC Right Now? The Reserve in a Single Number

The Liquid Federation holds the Bitcoin that back the issued L-BTC in a jointly managed multisignature address. Before September 6, that balance stood above 4,200 BTC according to Bitcoin Magazine, roughly level with the circulating supply. After the peg-out on the afternoon of September 6, the endpoint still reports 197.47190204 BTC, last updated at Bitcoin block 965,928.

The circulating supply, by contrast, is unchanged. The peg endpoint reports 4,205.01883617 L-BTC as of Liquid block 4,050,335. Together the two figures give the backing ratio, and it is the one metric that counts immediately for a holder:

• Reserve: 197.47190204 BTC
• Circulating supply: 4,205.01883617 L-BTC
• Backing: 4.70 percent
• Shortfall: 4,007.55 BTC

A backing ratio is the share of posted collateral against the amount issued. For a redeemable Bitcoin token the target reading is 100 percent, because every unit issued is meant to be covered by exactly one Bitcoin in custody. On that logic, a reading of 4.70 percent means this: if every holder wanted to redeem today, the balance would stretch to just under five in a hundred.

What Is the Liquid Network, and What Do You Hold When You Hold L-BTC?

The Liquid Network is a sidechain of Bitcoin. A sidechain is a blockchain of its own, connected to a main chain by a bridge, with the main chain's units represented on it. Liquid was built for fast settlement between exchanges and trading houses: block time is one minute, amounts and asset types are confidential by default, and further issued assets run there alongside L-BTC.

The network is operated by the Liquid Federation, a group of member companies that signs the blocks and jointly controls the Bitcoin in custody. According to several trade publications, a payout requires eleven of fifteen signatures. Blockstream developed the software and provides part of the infrastructure.

Anyone holding L-BTC is not holding Bitcoin on the Bitcoin blockchain. They hold a claim on Bitcoin that a federation redeems. Before September 6 that distinction was a footnote in explainers. Since September 6 it has been the heart of the matter.

Peg-In and Peg-Out: How Bitcoin Reaches the Sidechain and Comes Back

A peg-in is the way in: you send Bitcoin to an address controlled by the federation, and the same amount of L-BTC is created on Liquid. A peg-out is the way out: your L-BTC are destroyed on the sidechain, and the federation pays you the corresponding amount in Bitcoin out of the reserve.

The whole procedure rests on one assumption: that only as many L-BTC exist on Liquid as there were Bitcoin paid in beforehand. That is exactly the point at which it failed on September 6. On Blockstream's account, reproduced by several trade publications, the L-BTC in the order concerned came into being through a flaw in the Elements software that Liquid is built on. As far as the network was concerned they were valid, without any Bitcoin ever having been paid in for them.

Checking L-BTC Backing: Two Endpoints, One Division

The check needs no tooling and no access rights. Both endpoints are public and answer with a single-line figure in satoshi, the smallest Bitcoin unit. One hundred million satoshi make one Bitcoin.

1. Fetch the reserve. Open liquid.network/api/v1/liquid/reserves. The amount field gives the amount in custody in satoshi, and lastBlockUpdate gives the Bitcoin block the reading refers to.
2. Fetch the circulating supply. The second path is /api/v1/liquid/pegs and returns the amount of L-BTC issued in the same format, together with the Liquid block as a time reference.
3. Divide. Reserve divided by circulating supply, times one hundred. On September 7, 2026 at 12:39 UTC that came to 4.70 percent.

The request has one advantage over any reporting, this piece included: it is current to the minute. When the announced return arrives, you will see it at this endpoint before any outlet writes about it. A proof of reserves you can recalculate yourself is what separates a promise from evidence. We set the principle out at length in how to check proof of reserves yourself, and the current case is the textbook illustration.

How Do I Verify a Bitcoin Transaction? The Peg-Out in Block 965,783

The payout in question sits in plain view on the Bitcoin blockchain. The identifier is 8db751a6…b140, confirmed in block 965,783, block time September 6, 2026, 14:28:56 UTC. The transaction pulls together 83 inputs and pays out a combined 4,019.44391988 BTC across thirteen outputs. These values come from our own request to the public Blockstream interface on September 7, not from a media report.

You verify a transaction in three steps: enter the identifier in a block explorer, read the confirmation status and the block height, then compare the sum of the outputs with what was reported. If the sum differs, you have a finding. If it matches, you have checked the report at its source rather than at second hand.

How Do I Verify Wallet Addresses? Where the Bitcoin Sit Today

Several reports circulate the address that received the first payout. That first address is empty by now. Within the same block 965,783, 3,996.01834922 BTC moved on to bc1ql4mfu6aundtkksxklfajs2h3t9nzcd6gyqjlte. At the time of my measurement on September 7 at 12:39 UTC it held 3,998.49939856 BTC across one hundred counted transactions, with one open entry in the mempool, the queue of unconfirmed transactions.

You check an address the same way: address into the explorer, read off the balance, then place the transaction count and the mempool status beside it. What matters is the difference between an unchanged balance and an unchanged address. The balance can stay level while small amounts move in and out in the background. Anyone writing that the funds are sitting untouched should say which of the two addresses they mean.

What Blockstream, the Federation and SideSwap Have Officially Said

Attribution matters more here than sharpening the point, so what follows is only what the parties themselves have said, and in whose name.

The Liquid Federation said, according to Bitcoin Magazine, that alleged white-hat hackers had withdrawn around 4,000 Bitcoin, that the bridge nodes had been shut down and the sidechain halted, and that other issued assets were not affected. In the operator's wording, the sidechain is paused until the matter is cleared up.

SideSwap, whose peg-out service processed the order, stated publicly that a customer had sent 4,000 L-BTC to the service at 14:05 UTC; that the service had handled the order like any other; that the L-BTC had been destroyed on Liquid with valid peg-out authorization; and that at 14:28 UTC the federation had paid out 3,996 Bitcoin. On Liquid's account, SideSwap's authorization key was not compromised, and neither were any other keys. The cause lies in the Elements software.

Some restraint is called for on the "white hat" label. The term comes from a message left on-chain by the other side itself, which several trade publications reproduce. According to consistent reports, Blockstream answered by the same route, with PGP signatures attached to Bitcoin transactions. Whether the intention really was a return will be settled at the reserve and nowhere else.

Why the Promised Return Has Not Restored the Backing Yet

On September 7 Blockstream reported that the bridge nodes had been patched and secured, leaving nothing in the way of returning the roughly 4,000 Bitcoin. That is a solid piece of news, and a welcome one. It does not establish backing yet.

My measurement at 12:39 UTC on September 7 shows the reserve unchanged at 197.47190204 BTC, while the receiving address still holds around 3,998 Bitcoin. Exactly one transaction separates an announced return from a completed one, and at the time of writing it was still outstanding. Anyone who wants to see it happen calls the reserve endpoint: if the figure there climbs toward 4,200, it has happened. If it stays at 197, it has not.

What the Incident Means for Your L-BTC Balance on a Crypto Exchange

L-BTC holders currently fall into two groups, and their options differ considerably.

Anyone holding L-BTC in a Liquid wallet of their own keeps control of the key but cannot move the balance back across the bridge at the moment: peg-outs are suspended. The sidechain itself keeps producing blocks, so transfers within Liquid are running. Anyone holding L-BTC on an exchange is blocked from deposits and withdrawals of that asset, because the venues halted transfers after the federation's appeal. For the choice of trading venue and its custody practice we keep a separate hardware wallet comparison, because in weeks like this one the question of who holds the key is the only one that counts.

Three things make sense in both cases at present: call the reserve endpoint once a day, follow the official channels of the federation and of your own exchange, and start no new peg-ins while the bridge is paused. SideSwap has explicitly asked users to send neither peg-in nor peg-out deposits until the services return.

Which Assets on Liquid the Peg-Out Incident Did Not Touch

Further issued assets run on Liquid alongside L-BTC, among them Tether's USDT stablecoin, the Brazilian DePix and tokenized real-world assets. According to the federation, as reproduced consistently by Bitcoin Magazine and Cryptobriefing, these assets are unaffected by the incident: the vulnerability concerned the peg-out mechanism for L-BTC.

That is more than a footnote. A USDT holder on Liquid reads headlines these days about a halted sidechain and may draw the wrong conclusion from them. The chain produces blocks, transfers within the network work, and a stablecoin issued on Liquid hangs on the backing of its own issuer rather than on the federation's Bitcoin reserve.

Peg Discount: What Can Happen When Payouts Reopen

As long as peg-outs are suspended, there is no free price for the way back. If the bridge reopens while the missing Bitcoin are still absent from the reserve, a race begins: the claim to a payout would then be redeemable for some holders and beyond reach for the rest. In such a situation a backed token typically trades below the value of the underlying asset, because the market prices in the probability of redemption. Cryptobriefing has explicitly flagged this risk of a peg discount.

That is a possibility and no forecast. If the promised Bitcoin come back before payouts reopen, the question never arises. Which is exactly why the order in which the two things happen is more interesting for holders than any price analysis: reserve first, bridge afterwards.

What This Case Teaches You About Every Bridge and Every Sidechain

The case is specific; the pattern is not. Every bridge between two networks creates a claim on the destination chain that hangs on the security of a custodian. A flaw in the destination chain's software can conjure that claim out of nothing, and the custodian notices only when a payout falls due. The shutdown of the Silicon Network was the orderly version of the same problem: balances on a bridge stay reachable only as long as somebody operates the bridge.

In practice that means three questions before any bridged balance. Who holds the collateral, and is the amount publicly retrievable? How many signatures does a payout take, and who holds them? And how do I get back out if the operator halts the bridge? For most bridges there is no good answer to the third question, which is an argument for keeping bridged balances small and time-limited.

What the 4.70 Percent Figure Does Not Tell You

A backing ratio measures a balance. It says nothing about intent and nothing about the future. The 4.70 percent tell you nothing about whether the Bitcoin will come back, when the federation will reopen the bridge, or at what rate holders are paid out in the end. They say nothing about the cause either: whether the Elements flaw persists cannot be read off the reserve endpoint, and the operator's statements are what count there.

What the figure does deliver is still a good deal. The request gives you a reading that nobody interprets on your behalf, it is current to the minute, and it is verifiable without your having to trust a report, this one included. Anyone wondering over the coming days whether something has moved has a better answer from this single request than from any headline.

Frequently Asked Questions About L-BTC Backing

Is my L-BTC worthless now?

No, that cannot be concluded from the backing ratio. L-BTC remains a claim against the federation, and the operators have held out the prospect of returning the funds. What can be said is this: the reserve currently covers a small part of the circulating supply, and how a claim gets served in the end is open.

Can I withdraw my L-BTC now?

Peg-outs are suspended, as are L-BTC deposits and withdrawals at the exchanges that followed the appeal. Transfers within the Liquid network continue, because the chain produces blocks.

Are my Bitcoin in my own wallet affected?

Bitcoin on the Bitcoin blockchain are untouched by the event. What is affected is the reserve that stands against the L-BTC issued on the sidechain. Anyone who never made a peg-in holds no L-BTC.

How will I know the Bitcoin are back?

From the figure at the reserve endpoint. If it rises clearly above the current 197 BTC, a repayment has arrived. A second indication is the balance of the receiving address, which would have to fall accordingly.

Checking L-BTC Backing: What to Take Away

1. Recalculate the backing yourself before you adopt anyone's assessment. Two requests, one division, thirty seconds. If you hold balances spread across trading venues, the same critical look at their proof of reserves pays off; which houses publish one at all is set out in our crypto exchange comparison.
2. Separate claim from ownership. A bridged token is a claim against an operator; a Bitcoin under your own key is ownership. Anyone wanting to reflect that difference in their portfolio will find the tools for it in the software wallet comparison.
3. Keep bridged balances small and the rest in your own custody. The incident hit nobody who held their Bitcoin on the main chain and under their own key. Which device is up to the job is covered in the hardware wallet comparison.

(As of September 7, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Monday's crypto market looks quiet on the surface, with the total market cap barely moving. Underneath, there is a Fed hike being priced in, a security warning hanging over half of all USDT, and a hacker quietly moving stolen bitcoin. Here is what matters.

Why Is Bitcoin Stuck Below $80,000?

Blame Friday. August payrolls came in at 162,000 against a consensus near 56,000, which revived talk of a Federal Reserve rate hike at the 15 to 16 September meeting. $Bitcoin dropped below $80,000, about $757 million in leveraged positions were liquidated, and the two-year Treasury yield hit a 52-week high near 4.4%. BTC is now holding around $79,000.

Here is the part most coverage is skipping. CME FedWatch puts the odds of a 25 basis point hike at roughly 58%, which is almost exactly where traders had it a week ago, before the jobs data, in the aftermath of Warsh's hawkish Jackson Hole speech. The people with money on the line barely repriced anything. The selloff was a bigger reaction than the actual change in expectations warranted. Wednesday's CPI print is the real test.

Is Tether's $91 Billion Problem Real?

Security firm Hacken gave USDT a cybersecurity score of 3.3 out of 10, finding that roughly $91.3 billion of USDT on Tron sits behind a contract whose administrative controls can be seized by anyone holding two of three signing keys. No timelock, no cancellation window, no way to reverse it. Those controls can mint tokens, freeze addresses and reassign ownership.

Awkwardly, this landed alongside good news: Bluechip raised Tether's corporate grade from D to C after a KPMG audit found reserves exceeded liabilities by $6.8 billion. Solid books, thin key management. Hacken found no evidence of any actual compromise, but the shape of the risk is not hypothetical. Resolv's stablecoin fell 70% in March after an attacker minted tokens, and StablR disclosed unauthorised issuance in May.

What Is The Coldcard Hacker Doing Now?

The attacker behind July's Coldcard exploit has moved another $7.7 million in BTC, reportedly around 45% of the total stolen, in a third wave of activity. The original bug drained roughly $38 million from about 500 wallets by generating seeds with far less entropy than the standard requires.

Are Altcoins Flashing A Warning?

Two signals worth watching. Altcoin open interest has overtaken Bitcoin for the first time since December 2024, meaning leverage has piled into the riskier end of the market. At the same time, every whale cohort has flipped into net distribution for the first time since early June, with a visible sell wall near $83,000.

Fear and Greed, meanwhile, is still sitting in Greed in the low 70s. Big holders selling into leveraged optimism is not usually how strong weeks begin.

What Else Is Moving?

The Senate's procedural vote on the CLARITY Act, which would split crypto oversight between the SEC and CFTC, has slipped from its planned 15 September date. The UK's FCA has reportedly held talks about easing its ban on financial prediction markets. Zcash is up around 45% on the week with ZEC above $1,200. And spot Bitcoin ETFs pulled in roughly $770 million across September's first four sessions, which is the quiet bullish detail in an otherwise nervous tape.

On the Liquid Network, the best-known Bitcoin sidechain, around 4,000 Bitcoin drained out of the shared reserve on September 6, 2026. The network has been halted since then, L-BTC currently cannot be swapped back into real Bitcoin, and several trading venues have stopped deposits and withdrawals of the token. If you hold L-BTC or use a wallet that supports Liquid, your most important task today is taking stock rather than trading.

The incident is unusual because no key was stolen. The payout was cryptographically valid. That is precisely what makes the case interesting for anyone who holds Bitcoin through a second layer.

What happened on the Liquid Network on September 6

According to several specialist outlets, between 3,998.5 and 4,019.4 Bitcoin were withdrawn from what is known as the federation wallet of the Liquid Network. At the time of the outflow the value stood at roughly $319 million to $320 million. The range arises because individual newsrooms draw the boundaries of the movement differently: tftc.io counts 3,998.5 BTC based on the on-chain data, while Bitcoin Magazine cites 4,019.4 BTC. The Liquid team itself officially speaks of around 4,000 Bitcoin.

Cryptopolitan dates the decisive transaction to Bitcoin block 965,783, confirmed on September 6, 2026 at 14:28:56 UTC. According to the analysis by tftc.io, 207.275 BTC remained in the federation wallet afterwards. Before that there were around 4,200 BTC. So roughly five percent of the reserve was left standing.

Shortly afterwards the network pulled the emergency brake. The bridge nodes were shut down, and new deposits and withdrawals between Bitcoin and Liquid are blocked. The sidechain itself continues to produce blocks, but the route back into the Bitcoin network is closed. No date for a restart has been given so far.

Peg-out, federation and PAK: how the Liquid Bitcoin bridge normally works

To understand why this case is different from an ordinary exchange hack, you need three terms.

A sidechain is an independent blockchain that is docked onto a main chain and represents its coins in wrapped form. L-BTC is the Bitcoin proxy on Liquid: a token that is meant to be backed one to one by real Bitcoin held jointly by a group of companies. That group is called the federation, and it is the actual custodian.

The way in is called a peg-in, the way out a peg-out: you lock real Bitcoin, are credited with the same amount of L-BTC, and can reverse the process later. In a peg-out the L-BTC on the sidechain are destroyed and the federation releases the real Bitcoin in return. So that no single party can do this alone, Liquid requires, as tftc.io describes it, a multisignature from eleven of the fifteen federation members plus authorisation via an allow list, the Peg-out Authorization Key, or PAK for short. A PAK is therefore the registered key that determines which Bitcoin address may be paid out to at all.

On September 6 the payout ran through the PAK of the SideSwap service. The network stresses that this key was not compromised, and that no key otherwise fell into the wrong hands. The signatures were genuine, the authorisation formally correct, and the federation did what it was built to do. The gap sat one layer earlier.

The flaw was in the software, not in the keyring

Several reports trace the process back to a bug in Elements, the open-source software Liquid is built on. The accounts differ in detail, and that difference is worth knowing rather than skimming past.

Bitcoin Magazine describes an inflation bug: more than 4,000 L-BTC are said to have been created without real Bitcoin behind them, and these were then paid out via the SideSwap PAK. A second reading, quoted in several reports, describes the sequence as an apparently regular process in which L-BTC were properly burned and just under 4,000 real Bitcoin were released as a result. Both variants lead to the same outcome: the sidechain's accounting and the federation's actual Bitcoin holdings no longer matched.

A conclusive technical post-mortem by the operators was not available at the time of writing. As long as it is missing, any statement about the exact place in the code is conjecture, and we treat it as such here.

"We are whitehats": what this on-chain message actually proves

In a follow-up transaction the other side left the message "we are whitehats. contact us on chain". In IT security a white hat is someone who finds a vulnerability and discloses it instead of exploiting it. Here the label is a self-description, no more than that.

What can be established: according to consistent reports, the Bitcoin are sitting untouched at the receiving address. Blockstream and the Liquid team are trying to make contact through signed on-chain messages. One of the reports states that the other side has held out the prospect of returning most of the sum once the Elements vulnerability is closed network-wide. That undertaking is not confirmed, and no repayment has been made to date.

For you as a holder, the choice of words changes nothing. Whether someone calls themselves a white hat does not decide whether your money comes back. Only the actual return decides that.

L-BTC is frozen: what holders should check right now

The unpleasant news first: anyone holding L-BTC can do little at the moment. The peg-out is blocked, so a swap into real Bitcoin is not possible for the time being. There is no button that solves the problem for you.

An orderly stocktake still makes sense. Open your wallets and look at whether there is any Liquid balance among them at all. The wallets mainly affected are those that support Liquid, such as SideSwap, Blockstream Green or Aqua, along with balances at trading venues that list L-BTC. If you are unsure whether a holding sits on Liquid or on the Bitcoin base layer, a look at the address format and the block explorer used will help. Note down the position with date and time so that you have a solid starting figure later, should any settlement arrangement come about.

Refrain from attempting new peg-ins now. As long as the bridge nodes are switched off, the best case is that you are sending Bitcoin into a queue whose resolution nobody can schedule. And treat offers that promise you a quick payout of your L-BTC for a fee with caution. Situations like this tend to attract fraud attempts posing as support.

USDt, DePix and RWAs on Liquid: why these assets are affected differently

Liquid carries more than wrapped Bitcoin. The official network account has stated that other issued assets are unaffected, among them the stablecoin USDt, the Brazilian DePix and tokenised real-world assets.

That is technically plausible: these tokens do not hang on the federation's Bitcoin reserve, and their backing sits with the respective issuers. The outflow from the federation wallet therefore does not touch them. In practice a problem remains, because as long as the network is halted you can move these assets only to a limited extent as well. Being unaffected and being freely available are two different things at the moment.

Exchanges halt L-BTC deposits and withdrawals: where to check the status

Several trading venues have suspended deposits and withdrawals of L-BTC or announced that they will. What counts here is solely the status page of your own provider together with its announcements, and not the summary in a news feed. That is where you will find whether only transfers are affected or trading too, and whether withdrawals in real Bitcoin remain possible by another route.

In a situation like this, pay particular attention to which networks a provider supports for deposits and withdrawals at all, and how quickly and openly it communicates about disruptions. Anyone with balances spread across several venues should go through this check today for every one of them, and not only for the one they use daily.

Sidechain, bridge, wrapped token: the counterparty risk behind every wrapped Bitcoin

The sentence that sticks from this case comes from the analysis by tftc.io: L-BTC holders had no direct claim on the underlying Bitcoin, and their risk was against a consortium of companies rather than against the Bitcoin protocol.

This is not a peculiarity of Liquid. It applies to every wrapped Bitcoin on every foreign chain. A wrapped token is a placeholder that represents on one blockchain the quantity of a coin held somewhere else. Its value hangs on two conditions: the backing has to exist, and redemption has to work. If either falls away, you hold a claim whose enforceability you may well not know.

Sidechains and bridges buy you something with real advantages in return: faster and cheaper transfers, confidential amounts, applications that do not run on the Bitcoin base layer. Anyone using them should make that trade deliberately rather than in passing. A useful rule of thumb: what sits on a second layer is working capital. What is meant to stay put for the long run belongs on the base layer in your own custody, as we described after the Coldcard incident in our assessment of the hardware wallet choice.

What the case means for your own custody

The key difference between this incident and a classic theft is the point of attack. Storing good keys well was of no help here, because the keys were fine. What broke is the rule that decides when those keys are allowed to sign.

From that follows an uncomfortable insight: the security of your holdings does not end at your own wallet. What matters is the whole chain of systems standing between you and the base layer. For a Bitcoin in your hardware wallet that chain is short. For an L-BTC in a software wallet, backed by a federation, secured through an allow list, paid out via a service with its own registered key, it is long.

In practice that means three things. Keep the amount on second layers small enough that a total loss does not knock you off course. For every wrapped token, check who the custodian is and whether one is even named. And document your holdings regularly, so that in an incident you have figures rather than memories.

What remains open

Three points were unresolved at the time of writing. There is no date for the network to restart. There is no commitment from the operators on how L-BTC balances will be handled if the Bitcoin do not come back. And there is no independent confirmation that the other side will actually repay. Anyone telling you today that the case is settled knows more than can be evidenced.

Liquid peg-out and checking your L-BTC: what to take away

1. Establish and document your holdings. Open every wallet and every account today and record whether and how much L-BTC or other Liquid balance is sitting there, with date and time. Our crypto exchange comparison helps when you reconcile the networks and withdrawal routes of your trading venues.
2. Send nothing new into the blocked bridge. Avoid peg-ins as long as the bridge nodes are switched off, and read the status exclusively at your provider and at the network operator. Which wallet supports Liquid at all, and how transparently it discloses that, is shown in our software wallet comparison.
3. Bring long-term holdings onto the base layer. Separate working capital from reserves and self-custody the part that is meant to stay put. Which devices come into question and how to tell them apart is in our hardware wallet comparison.

(As of September 7, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Filecoin's vesting of Protocol Labs and the Filecoin Foundation ends on October 15, 2026. It is the largest inflow channel for new FIL since mainnet launched, and it dries up completely on that day. Gross emission, meaning the volume of FIL that enters circulation each year, falls by roughly 75 percent as a result: from about 88 million to about 22 million tokens a year. As a holder you need to do nothing on that date. No deadline expires, no swap is required. What changes is the mechanism behind it, and that is worth understanding before the day arrives.

The Filecoin price stood at $0.8173, or €0.7034, on September 7, 2026 at 06:36 UTC, up 1.69 percent over 24 hours, with a market capitalisation of around $676 million (source: CoinGecko API, own query at that time). Circulating supply was 826,950,326 FIL. That figure is the denominator for everything that follows, because emission numbers say little without a reference to circulating supply. If you hold FIL or want to build a position, what matters most is where you buy and how cheaply you get in: our comparison of the best crypto exchanges shows which venues list FIL and what they charge in fees.

What happens to Filecoin vesting on October 15, 2026

Vesting describes a lock-up period over which allocated tokens are released step by step instead of becoming available all at once. At Filecoin it covers the allocations to the development team Protocol Labs and to the Filecoin Foundation. The official documentation states the period in plain terms: a defined share of the FIL minted at genesis is released to Protocol Labs teams and the Filecoin Foundation over six years, and to SAFT investors over three years (docs.filecoin.io).

Six years from the mainnet launch land in precisely this October. Mainnet started at epoch 148,888, which corresponds to October 15, 2020 at 14:44 UTC. The announced end date therefore follows straight from a schedule that has sat in the protocol since 2020. Nothing about it is new except the fact that it now comes due.

Where new FIL has come from so far: vesting and block rewards

New FIL arises from two sources at Filecoin. One is block rewards, the payments storage providers receive for supplying and proving storage capacity. The other is that vesting. According to figures from the project source FilecoinTLDR, vesting from Protocol Labs and the Filecoin Foundation contributes around 66.7 million FIL a year, block rewards around 21.7 million. Together that is just under 10 percent of circulating supply per year, as the source puts it.

Measured against current circulating supply, the figure holds up: 66.7 million equals 8.07 percent of 826,950,326 FIL, and the 22 million from block rewards equal 2.66 percent. Together, 10.73 percent. For anyone who prefers a daily number: at 88.4 million FIL a year that works out at roughly 242,000 new FIL per day, after which about 60,000 remain. The difference of some 182,000 FIL a day was worth about €128,000 on September 7.

Why gross FIL emission falls by roughly 75 percent

The arithmetic behind it is unspectacular. Of the two inflows, the larger one disappears and the smaller one stays. 66.7 out of 88.4 million is a good 75 percent, and that is exactly how the primary source states it: on October 15 this source dries up and cuts gross emission by about 75 percent. What remains is block rewards alone, around 22 million FIL a year, or a little over 2 percent of circulating supply.

Gross emission here refers exclusively to the inflow: everything that newly enters circulation, without netting off what leaves it. This distinction is the heart of the whole topic, and it gets lost in most headlines.

Vesting, emission and circulating supply: the terms kept apart

Three terms are regularly thrown together around this date. It helps to pin each of them down.

Circulating supply is the volume of FIL that is freely tradable. On September 7 that value stood at 826,950,326 tokens. Total supply of all FIL ever minted is 1,957,088,873 tokens, so roughly 42 percent of it is in circulation. Emission describes the speed at which new tokens are added. And net supply is emission less whatever disappears from circulation.

Only emission changes on October 15. Circulating supply does not fall that day; it simply grows more slowly afterwards. Anyone waiting for a jump in the statistics in October will wait in vain. The effect shows up as a flatter curve over months rather than as an edge on a single day.

Why lower emission does not automatically mean less FIL supply

This is where the real stumbling block lies, and the project source spells it out itself: the end of vesting changes what comes into circulation, but not what circulating supply does afterwards. Burns and the locking of collateral decide the rest.

That is not a footnote but the condition attached to every statement about future supply. A network can halve its emission and still have more liquid tokens in the market if locked holdings are freed at the same time. The reverse also holds: available supply can shrink at unchanged emission when more tokens are locked or destroyed than are added.

Collateral locking and burns: the other side of the FIL supply calculation

Two mechanisms continuously withdraw tokens from Filecoin circulation. The first is collateral locking: storage providers have to post FIL as collateral before they may offer storage capacity, and that pledge stays locked for the term of the storage commitment. As long as the volume of offered storage rises, the locked balance grows with it. The second mechanism is burns: part of the network fees is destroyed permanently, and collateral is forfeited when storage commitments are breached.

Both quantities depend on actual use of the network, and they move independently of the vesting calendar. That is why the October 15 date supports no statement about how the freely tradable volume of FIL develops afterwards. What can be said is this: the one large factor that has so far pulled reliably in a single direction falls away, and the remaining calculation is settled by demand.

What the FIL supply simulation says and what it expressly is not

On future net supply, FilecoinTLDR cites a range from its own tokenomics simulator: depending on the state of the network, daily net growth in supply could sit some 86 to 119 percent below the August 2026 level by the end of 2027. At the upper end of that range the daily balance turns negative, meaning more FIL would leave circulation than enters it.

The source flags these figures in the same breath as modelled scenarios and expressly not as forecasts. The outcome hangs on factors such as demand within the network, block rewards, collateral and burns. Anyone passing this range on as a price target has suppressed the source's own framing. We therefore reproduce it exactly as it stands there: an arithmetic exercise under assumptions, and no statement about the market.

That caution is the exception in the German-language space. On the emission date itself there is so far practically nothing in German, while search results on Filecoin are dominated by chart technicals and price targets. Precisely for that reason, the distinction between mechanism and forecast matters more here than any single number.

FIP-0118 Solstice: the second change to Filecoin economics in Q4

The vesting date is not the only change to the economics of the network this quarter. The improvement proposal FIP-0118, named Solstice, was accepted in September and is waiting to be scheduled into a network upgrade. The state of the specification we refer to here is that of September 1, 2026, and details may still change before delivery.

Substantively it concerns the question of what block rewards are paid out for. Today storage providers receive rewards based on their storage performance, regardless of whether anyone pays for that storage. Under Solstice a share of block rewards would flow to services that bring paying usage into the network, and that share would only be paid out if the payment volume settled through Filecoin Pay reaches targets set in advance. If the targets are missed, the corresponding share is burned instead of paid. In addition, the human review in the Fil+ process would fall away: every new sector would start automatically with the tenfold quality-adjusted power multiplier.

For the supply side this means a further part of emission would be tied to actual demand, with burning as the fallback. Whether and when this arrives is still open.

How demand for Filecoin storage is developing right now

Because future net supply hangs on usage, the figures the project publishes on it are worth a look. The annualised run rate of Filecoin Pay, through which payments in the network are settled, rose from $663 in January to $59,327 at the end of August 2026, according to FilecoinTLDR. The number of actively paying addresses grew from 73 to 119 over the same period, and the number of active settlement channels stood at 865 in August.

That is growth from a very small base, and it should be read that way: a run rate in the low five-figure dollar range sits against a market capitalisation of around $676 million. Alongside it, Fil One has offered an S3-compatible object store since June, priced at $4.99 per terabyte per month with no charges for outbound data transfer. Whether that turns into paying demand on a scale that noticeably drives burns is open, and it can be tracked through exactly these figures.

How to check the date and the FIL emission yourself

You do not have to take any report on trust to verify the date. Filecoin writes a block every 30 seconds, and these blocks are numbered consecutively. Epoch 0 falls on August 24, 2020 at 22:00 UTC. From the current block height, any date can be calculated in either direction.

On September 7, 2026 at 06:36 UTC the chain stood at height 6,348,552, retrieved via the public Glif node. Counting up from epoch 0 at 30 seconds per block lands exactly on that time, so the calculation holds to the second. October 15, 2026 at 00:00 UTC corresponds to epoch 6,457,200. Between the two points lie 108,648 epochs, or 37.7 days. If you want to follow the number yourself, pull the block height and divide the difference to the target moment by 30 seconds.

The second verifiable quantity is circulating supply. Note it down today and compare it in November: at an emission of around 88 million FIL a year, circulation grows by about 7.4 million a month, and at 22 million a year by only some 1.8 million. You will see that difference in the data set of any major market data source within a few weeks. We have described at length how to recalculate such release volumes yourself instead of trusting an aggregator, using one concrete unlock as the example: recalculating a token unlock. The method is the same here, only the direction is reversed.

Do FIL holders need to act before October 15?

No. There is no deadline that expires for you, no swap, no registration and no freeze on deposits or withdrawals. The date concerns the release of tokens to the team and the foundation behind the project, and not the holdings of investors. Anyone with FIL sitting on an exchange or in their own wallet can do exactly the same on October 15 as on the 14th.

This is the point where the date differs from those events that do create pressure to act. With an announced trading halt or a withdrawal deadline at an exchange you have to react, otherwise your balance is blocked. Here it works the other way round: doing nothing costs you nothing. It is still worth knowing the difference between the two cases, because headlines tend to treat them alike.

What the date means for custody and tax

Indirectly there are two points of contact. The first concerns custody. If you want to hold FIL for years because the supply mechanism convinces you, the question becomes where those tokens sit. Holdings on a trading platform belong to you economically but carry the platform's risk. Anyone who wants to separate the two holds their own coins and needs a wallet that supports FIL at all. Not every device does, and the differences lie less in the price than in which networks the manufacturer maintains.

The second point is tax. In Germany, selling crypto assets after a holding period of more than one year is tax-free for private individuals, and within that period the exemption limit for private disposal transactions applies. Anyone reallocating because of an expected supply squeeze may trigger a taxable event by doing so, regardless of whether the expectation is borne out. Clean records of acquisition dates are therefore the precondition for knowing what a sale actually costs.

How this date fits the run of FIL supply events

At many projects, releases and lock-ups shape supply more strongly than any partnership announcement. Usually the subject is additional tokens coming to market, as with the monthly releases we last worked through using LayerZero and its ZRO token. Filecoin now stands at the other end of that pattern: here an inflow ends that ran reliably for six years.

For context that means two things. First, the effect is structural and works over months, whereas a single unlock is measurable on one day. Second, the end of an inflow is the weaker of the two statements, because it touches only one half of the equation. What counts in the end is the balance of inflow, locking and burning, and at Filecoin that balance depends more heavily on network usage from mid-October than ever before.

Filecoin vesting: what to take away

1. Check the date yourself instead of taking it over. The block height and the 30-second epochs give you the date to the second, and circulating supply will show you from November whether emission has actually flattened. If you need a venue that lists FIL for this, you will find the terms in our crypto exchange comparison.
2. Keep emission and supply apart. The 75 percent refers to the inflow, and not to the tradable volume. Anyone holding for the long run should set up custody accordingly; the differences between devices are in our hardware wallet comparison.
3. Factor in tax before you reallocate. If you sell on a supply expectation, you should know the holding period of each individual purchase. Tools that track this automatically are in our comparison of tax tools and portfolio trackers.

(As of September 7, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

Biden's LAPTOP meme coin drops this week. Most crypto traders out there so far don't seem too enthused.

Nearly 600 BTC remains outstanding after Blockstream told the actors in an on-chain message that Liquid’s bridge nodes had been patched.

The Iran conflict has increased demand for digital assets to preserve and transfer wealth, while Gulf crypto businesses have kept operating through disruption, the Bitcoin Policy Institute says.

A plea agreement hearing in Lam's case is set for Tuesday in Washington, nearly two years after his arrest in Miami.

Hunter Biden is launching a meme coin called LAPTOP on Sept. 9 on Base, and airdropping traders who lost money on TRUMP.

XRP futures trading has surged to a six-month high, with renewed activity on Binance and other major exchanges pointing to a sharp revival in derivatives interest.

XRP derivatives print a rare 10,535% liquidation imbalance inside a Labor Day liquidity dip.

Bitcoin miners freeze all coin sales after spending $30 billion on AI infrastructure, sparking a sudden supply squeeze on exchanges.

The XRP Ledger is edging closer to activating the long-awaited BatchV1_1 amendment.

Shiba Inu may be set for another major price rally after activities across its supported exchanges flipped to show that selling pressure is rapidly fading again.

TLDR

• Dell stock gains as the company expands its consumer PC lineup with the 14S
• Dell launches the 14S laptop as consumer revenue rises for a fourth quarter
• Dell’s 14S targets students with a lightweight design and 21-hour battery life
• Dell’s consumer revenue rises 7% as the company expands its laptop product lineup
• Dell shares gain 316.3% year to date as PC competition with HP and Apple grows

Dell (DELL) closed at $524.14, up 1.50%, as the company expands its PC lineup with the Dell 14S laptop. After-hours trading reached $522.60, down 0.29%, while the chart showed support around $520. The laptop targets students and young adults, adding an accessible option alongside Dell’s XPS 13.

Dell Technologies Inc., DELL

Dell Expands Consumer PC Lineup

Dell introduced the 14S with a 13.5mm aluminum chassis and a weight of 1.15 kilograms. The laptop comes in four colors and offers battery life of up to 21 hours. It provides 2K 60Hz and 2.8K 120Hz display options, while Intel Core 5 and Core 7 Series 3 processors power it.

The Dell 14S supports student tasks, including classes, study sessions, video calls and multitasking. Its portable design and battery capacity support users who need mobility. Dell expects the laptop to become available across North America during the fall.

The new model broadens Dell’s consumer portfolio, which also includes the premium XPS 13. Therefore, the company offers products for different customer needs. The expansion places Dell against notebook offerings from HP and Apple.

DELL Consumer Revenue Gains

Dell’s consumer business has grown as PC refresh activity supports demand across its Client Solutions Group. Consumer revenue increased 7% year over year to $1.8 billion in fiscal second-quarter 2027. That marked the fourth consecutive quarter of consumer demand growth.

Client Solutions Group revenue increased 20% year over year to $15 billion during the period. Operating income reached $1.1 billion, representing 7.6% of revenue, as pricing discipline and scale supported results. Dell expects Group revenue to rise about 15% in fiscal third-quarter 2027.

For fiscal 2027, Dell expects Client Solutions Group revenue to grow in the mid-teens. The forecast follows several quarters of rising consumer demand and broader PC activity. Consequently, the 14S launch adds another product to Dell’s consumer portfolio.

Dell Faces HP and Apple Competition

HP expands its PC business through product breadth, AI-enabled PCs and cost optimization. Personal Systems revenue increased 18% year over year to a record $11.8 billion in fiscal third-quarter 2026. Consumer revenue also rose 10%, while AI PCs accounted for 46% of HP’s mix.

HP expects AI PCs to represent 60% to 70% of its mix in 2027 as the category expands. The company has used design-for-cost initiatives and demand shaping for markets. These measures support HP’s position across consumer and premium PC segments.

Apple also reported Mac growth, with Mac revenue rising 29% year over year to $10.4 billion. MacBook Neo and MacBook Pro supported the increase, while MacBook Neo gained traction in education. Dell shares have risen 316.3% year-to-date, compared with 17.9% for the broader Zacks sector.

The post Dell (DELL) Stock:Expands Consumer PC Lineup With New 14S Laptop appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Broadcom stock gains as custom AI silicon drives stronger revenue growth outlook.
• AI semiconductor revenue jumps 221% to $16.7 billion in Broadcom’s latest Q3.
• Broadcom projects $115 billion in AI semiconductor revenue for fiscal 2027.
• Strong free cash flow gives Broadcom more room to fund future AI expansion plans.
• William Blair keeps its Buy rating as Broadcom’s long-term AI outlook improves.

Broadcom Inc. (AVGO) stock rose 0.21% to $357.90 as custom AI silicon strengthened its growth outlook. Shares later slipped 0.23% after hours to $357.07 following strong quarterly results. Hyperscaler spending on accelerators and networking continues supporting Broadcom’s expansion.

Broadcom Inc., AVGO

Custom AI Silicon Drives Broadcom Revenue Growth

Broadcom reported Q3 2026 revenue of $29.6 billion, up 86% year over year. AI semiconductor revenue reached $16.7 billion, rising 221% as hyperscalers expanded custom deployments. Management expects Q4 AI semiconductor revenue of $21.7 billion, representing 236% annual growth.

Broadcom also expects total Q4 revenue of about $34.8 billion, up 93% annually. The company generated $13.7 billion in free cash flow during Q3. That figure equaled 46% of revenue and strengthened Broadcom’s funding capacity.

Management expects strong demand to extend beyond fiscal 2026 as hyperscalers expand specialized computing. Broadcom projects about $115 billion in AI semiconductor revenue for fiscal 2027. It also projects $230 billion for fiscal 2028, highlighting a multiyear growth cycle.

Broadcom Strengthens Its Competitive Position

Broadcom combines custom accelerator design with high-speed networking for large computing deployments. Larger clusters require faster processor links, increasing demand for Broadcom’s networking products. This model lets Broadcom capture more semiconductor content as customers expand infrastructure.

Marvell Technology remains a major custom-silicon and networking competitor, but Broadcom operates at greater scale. Broadcom produced $16.7 billion in quarterly AI semiconductor revenue during Q3. Its wider product mix also reduces reliance on one chip program.

Broadcom also carries lower short interest than Marvell, showing weaker bearish positioning. Short interest stands near 1.20% of Broadcom’s float versus 3.79% for Marvell. Insider Monkey data showed 170 hedge funds held Broadcom shares after Q2 2026.

William Blair Supports Broadcom’s Growth Outlook

William Blair analyst Sebastien Naji maintained a Buy rating following Broadcom’s stronger long-term AI outlook. Naji highlighted Broadcom’s custom silicon position, networking portfolio, and growing accelerator roadmap. New ASIC and networking products may support further growth as hyperscalers add computing capacity.

Broadcom’s rapid expansion has also raised market expectations for future results. The company guided Q4 revenue to about $34.8 billion, slightly below some estimates. That gap shows the market already prices significant AI semiconductor growth into Broadcom shares.

Competition remains strong across custom silicon, GPUs, networking, and cloud companies’ internal chips. Nvidia, AMD, Marvell, and hyperscalers continue building products that challenge Broadcom in specific workloads. Still, Broadcom’s scale, cash flow, and combined silicon-networking strategy support its growth position.

The post Broadcom Inc. (AVGO) Stock: Rises as Custom AI Silicon Fuels Massive Growth Outlook appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Jefferies stock gains as fund seeks Singapore freeze against Radiant World.
• LAM Trade Finance Group II expands legal action against Radiant World in Singapore.
• Singapore court will hear the freezing injunction request against Radiant World.
• Radiant World faces growing legal pressure across Singapore and the United Kingdom.
• Jefferies-linked fund escalates recovery efforts over disputed trade financing.

Jefferies Financial Group (JEF)  stock rose Monday as a linked fund intensified legal action against iron ore trader Radiant World. JEF closed at $55.23, up 1.79%, then gained 0.20% after hours to $55.34. The move came before a Singapore hearing on the fund’s freezing injunction request.

Jefferies Financial Group Inc., JEF

Jefferies Stock Gains as Fund Escalates Singapore Case

LAM Trade Finance Group II applied for the injunction against Radiant World and founder Pinkesh Nahar. Singapore’s High Court will hear the application on September 9, according to the judiciary’s hearing list. The filing follows a worldwide freezing order secured from a United Kingdom court.

The Singapore case names Radiant World’s Hong Kong parent and main Singapore operating entity. It also names Sapphire Minmetals Corporation and chairman Rakesh Sethi as defendants. Jefferies holds a minority interest in the fund, while Point Bonita manages it within the bank’s asset management business.

Bloomberg reported that Point Bonita financed invoices linked to Radiant World and Sapphire Minmetals. Trading counterparties later questioned some supporting documents, according to the report. The dispute has since widened into legal action across several jurisdictions.

Radiant World Faces Wider Legal and Banking Pressure

Radiant World now faces several legal and financial challenges in Singapore and elsewhere. Some banks have frozen accounts, while trading firms have cut ties with the iron ore trader. Concerns focus on whether invoices used in trade-finance deals were valid and properly supported.

Radiant World has denied wrongdoing and says its operations meet commercial and legal standards. Sethi has rejected claims linking Sapphire Minmetals and Radiant World as one corporate group. Glencore chief executive Gary Nagle previously said the company viewed both traders as part of the same group.

Other lenders have also taken legal action tied to Radiant World’s Singapore business. Incomlend has sued Radiant World and Nahar in Singapore over separate claims. Mizuho Bank has pursued measures involving management of Radiant World’s Singapore unit.

Jefferies Fund Expands Cross-Border Enforcement

The Singapore application follows the fund’s earlier London claims against the same five parties. A United Kingdom court then granted a worldwide freezing order covering assets linked to those defendants. The order strengthened the fund’s position while it pursued recovery tied to disputed financing.

Singapore police also began reviewing Radiant World after receiving reports about the company last month. Authorities disclosed the investigation but did not provide detailed allegations or findings. The review adds scrutiny alongside civil claims and banking restrictions.

A separate Singapore lawsuit accused Radiant World of using previously paid Glencore invoices to secure new financing. The lender also alleged that fake contracts supported a $31.7 million funding request. Radiant World denied wrongdoing as the latest Jefferies-linked case moved through Singapore’s High Court.

The post Jefferies Financial Group Inc. (JEF) Stock: Rises as Fund Seeks Freeze Against Radiant World in Singapore appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Bitcoin has surged approximately 30% from its recent bottom, now approaching the critical $82,800 resistance threshold
• Coinbase achieved an unprecedented 10.3% market share of worldwide cryptocurrency trading activity during Q2
• Circle’s USDC stablecoin circulation expanded to $73.3 billion, representing a 19% annual increase
• Robinhood delivered exceptional Q2 performance with $1.31 billion in revenue, marking a 32% year-over-year jump
• Circle is set to unveil its Arc blockchain mainnet to the public on September 16

The cryptocurrency sector has demonstrated renewed momentum as September begins. Bitcoin’s value has climbed roughly 30% from its recent trough, with prices now advancing toward the $80,000 threshold. A key resistance barrier exists near $82,800, and Bitcoin’s ability to penetrate this level could determine the market’s trajectory in coming weeks.

Simultaneously, robust employment figures from the United States and climbing energy costs have elevated market expectations for a potential Federal Reserve interest rate adjustment during its September 15-16 policy meeting. An imminent inflation data release may serve as a pivotal catalyst for both Bitcoin valuations and cryptocurrency-related equities.

Three companies deserve particular attention in this market landscape: Coinbase, Circle, and Robinhood.

Coinbase

Coinbase maintains its position as America’s dominant cryptocurrency exchange by trading volume and continues to represent a primary investment vehicle for those seeking direct cryptocurrency market participation.

Coinbase Global, Inc., COIN

During the second quarter, the platform secured an all-time high of 10.3% of worldwide cryptocurrency trading volume. This represented growth from the 9.1% captured in Q1 and extended the company’s market share expansion streak to three consecutive quarters.

Additionally, Coinbase recorded its 14th consecutive quarter delivering positive adjusted EBITDA results.

The company’s revenue profile has evolved beyond heavy Bitcoin dependence. Approximately 88% of net revenue now originates from activities unrelated to Bitcoin spot transactions. Revenue from subscriptions and services climbed to $555 million throughout Q2.

Stablecoin engagement continues accelerating. The average USDC balance maintained across Coinbase’s suite of products reached a record $20 billion during the reporting period.

Should Bitcoin successfully breach the $82,800 resistance level, increased trading activity could provide Coinbase with additional momentum through the remainder of the year.

Circle

Circle pursues a distinct business model. Rather than operating a trading platform, the organization issues USDC, ranking among the world’s premier dollar-pegged stablecoins.

USDC circulation achieved $73.3 billion during Q2, representing a 19% increase versus the corresponding quarter in the previous year. On-chain transaction volume exploded 151% to reach $14.8 trillion.

Circle generated $701 million in combined revenue and reserve income throughout the quarter. Adjusted EBITDA expanded 8% to $143 million.

A significant company-specific milestone approaches. Circle intends to activate the public mainnet of its Arc blockchain on September 16. Arc focuses on stablecoin payment infrastructure, programmable financial applications, and tokenized real-world asset management. Over 100 institutional participants and ecosystem developers have already committed involvement.

Circle’s primary challenges include intensifying competition within the stablecoin sector and vulnerability to interest rate fluctuations, given that reserve income constitutes a substantial component of the company’s revenue generation.

Robinhood

Robinhood presents the most varied business model among these three companies. Its platform encompasses equity trading, options contracts, prediction markets, and cryptocurrency services within a unified ecosystem.

The platform achieved all-time record revenue of $1.31 billion during Q2, representing a 32% annual increase. Diluted earnings per share surged 48% to reach $0.62. Net customer deposits hit an unprecedented $21.7 billion while Robinhood Gold membership expanded 39% to 4.8 million subscribers.

Cryptocurrency revenue actually declined 38% to $100 million during the quarter. However, overall revenue still reached record levels due to exceptional performance across alternative business segments.

Equity trading volume increased 85% and event-contract trading volume multiplied more than ten times. This diversification means Robinhood’s success doesn’t require a cryptocurrency market rally, although such conditions would certainly provide additional benefits.

Near-term prospects for all three stocks remain closely tied to Bitcoin’s performance. A decisive breakthrough above $82,800, coupled with favorable inflation data, could drive cryptocurrency-related stocks higher throughout late September.

The post Three Cryptocurrency Stocks Poised for Growth This September: Coinbase (COIN), Circle, and Robinhood (HOOD) appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Three new companies—Bloom Energy, Everpure, and Illumina—will enter the S&P 500 index effective September 21, 2026
• Molson Coors Beverage, The Trade Desk, and Builders FirstSource are being demoted to the S&P SmallCap 600
• The departing trio no longer meets the market capitalization requirements for the large-cap benchmark
• Four technology firms—Dell Technologies, Palo Alto Networks, Arista Networks, and Sandisk—are joining the S&P 100
• Four companies—Honeywell Aerospace, Nike, Simon Property Group, and Colgate-Palmolive—are leaving the S&P 100

Three companies are preparing to enter the prestigious S&P 500 index following the quarterly rebalancing announced by S&P Dow Jones Indices. The modifications become effective prior to the opening bell on Monday, September 21, 2026.

The index provider revealed the composition changes on Friday, emphasizing its commitment to maintaining each benchmark’s alignment with its target market capitalization tier.

New Additions and Departures from the S&P 500

Bloom Energy, a producer of fuel-cell power systems for commercial enterprises and data facilities, is replacing Molson Coors Beverage, the beverage giant responsible for popular brands like Coors Light and Miller Lite.

Everpure, specializing in data storage and management technologies, will take the spot currently held by The Trade Desk, a prominent provider of programmatic advertising platform solutions.

Illumina, known for its DNA sequencing and genomics technology, will displace Builders FirstSource, a major distributor of construction materials serving the U.S. home-building market.

The three exiting firms are being relegated to the S&P SmallCap 600 index. Meanwhile, both Everpure and Illumina are receiving promotions from the S&P MidCap 400 to join the large-capitalization S&P 500.

This particular reshuffle strengthens both the information technology and healthcare sectors by one constituent each. Conversely, the consumer staples and communication services sectors will each see one member departure.

Technology Dominance Grows in S&P 100

The S&P 100 index, representing America’s mega-cap companies, is experiencing significant composition changes. Dell Technologies, Palo Alto Networks, Arista Networks, and Sandisk are all being elevated to this elite benchmark.

These four additions will replace Honeywell Aerospace, Nike, Simon Property Group, and Colgate-Palmolive. Notably, all incoming constituents belong to the information technology sector, while none of the exiting companies represent this industry.

This shift underscores the ongoing transformation where technology enterprises increasingly dominate the upper echelons of market capitalization rankings.

Index inclusion typically triggers mechanical buying from passive funds and ETFs that must replicate the benchmark composition. Similarly, deletions force these funds to liquidate positions, creating potential price movements.

These market dynamics frequently materialize in the days preceding the official implementation as sophisticated investors position ahead of anticipated fund flows. However, index membership itself doesn’t alter a company’s fundamental operations or profitability trajectory.

Additional changes in this quarterly adjustment include HubSpot, AGNC Investment, Corcept Therapeutics, and Brinker International ascending to the S&P MidCap 400.

Boston Beer and Capri Holdings are being downgraded from the S&P MidCap 400 to the S&P SmallCap 600.

The SmallCap 600 will welcome Herc Holdings, Delek US Holdings, and several other additions. According to S&P, the companies being removed have outgrown the small-capitalization classification of the U.S. stock market.

Every modification spanning the S&P 500, S&P 100, S&P MidCap 400, and S&P SmallCap 600 indices will be implemented before market open on September 21, 2026.

The post S&P 500 Index Reshuffle: Bloom Energy (BE), Everpure, and Illumina (ILMN) Replace Three Major Companies appeared first on Blockonomi.

Tokenized versions of SPY, Google, and Robinhood’s own stock led a burst of on-chain trading activity over the past month, with Token Terminal data showing SPY on Robinhood Chain up by more than 1,300% in 30 days to an over $17 million market cap.

The moves point to fast-growing retail and platform interest in tokenized equities across several blockchains and issuers, even as trading volume in the category stays concentrated in a handful of tokens.

SPY, rGOOGL, and HOODb Lead a Month of Rapid Growth

Token Terminal posted the data on September 7, showing SPY’s Robinhood Chain deployment gained the most ground of any tokenized stock over the past 30 days, jumping 1,314% to a $17.4 million market cap. Reality’s rGOOGL on Arbitrum followed with a 530.9% increase to $18.8 million, while Binance bStocks’ HOODb rose 428.7% to $5.7 million.

The gains were not limited to the three largest movers. Binance bStocks’ MSTRb reached $53.8 million after rising 334.6%, making it the largest asset by market capitalization among the top five listed by Token Terminal. Robinhood’s NVDA climbed 284.4% to $15.2 million.

Other Robinhood assets also posted large increases. SPACEX rose 276.6% to $8.7 million, AAPL gained 249.9% to $5.6 million, and GME increased 219.4% to $3.9 million. Across the wider table, dozens of other tokenized stocks recorded gains of at least 50% during the same period.

Trading activity tells a more concentrated story. Token Terminal separately reported that QQQb was the most traded tokenized stock over the past 90 days, with $4.5 billion in volume, ahead of SPYx at $1.5 billion and SPCXb at $1.1 billion.

Those three tokens alone accounted for $7.1 billion, or 44.7%, of total decentralized exchange volume in the category, out of $15.9 billion overall, a figure that itself rose 1,250.8%.

Robinhood Chain’s Momentum Fits a Wider Pattern

The activity builds on a run Robinhood Chain has been on since its early July launch, when, as CryptoPotato reported earlier, the network topped $200 million in total value locked within its first week, drawing attention as much for meme coin trading as for tokenized stocks.

Tokenized equities were already the fastest-growing category tracked by CoinGecko between January 2024 and May 2026, expanding from 14 listed coins to 478, a jump of more than 3,300%, faster than either real-world assets or AI-linked tokens over the same stretch.

But not everyone views the shift as purely positive, with the International Monetary Fund warning in an April note that tokenization removes the settlement delays that normally give banks and regulators time to manage liquidity and intervene before problems become irreversible, arguing the efficiency gains come with less room to catch mistakes.

The post Tokenized Stocks See Explosive Growth as SPY, Google, and Robinhood Lead Rally appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The exploiter linked to the third wave of attacks on Coldcard wallets has now moved 45% of the coins stolen, according to Galaxy Research.

The firm said the funds have been transferred either to Ethereum through THORChain or into Coinjoin, in an effort to launder the stolen assets. During Wave 3, the exploiter created 293 2-of-2 multisig vaults for victims’ coins.

Wave 3 Haul

The first movements on September 2 sent funds through THORChain to Ethereum, while the latest activity has moved into Coinjoin rounds. Galaxy Research said the operator has been systematically spending the largest share of the thefts according to their size ranking. Ranks 1 through 11 have already been moved.

The next 10 unmoved vaults contain 30.81 BTC, while ranks 61 through 293 hold a combined 33.77 units. The latest transactions led Galaxy to identify a previously unknown vault linked to 58 addresses that are likely associated with Coldcard victims.

Most of the funds stolen in the Coldcard exploit have yet to move. In fact, approximately 82%, across all waves, are still held in the attacker-controlled addresses where the coins were initially stored. The remaining 18% has already been moved, and the transfers are apparently linked to efforts to launder the exploit’s haul.

Aftermath

The attack began on July 30, 2026, and targeted Coldcard wallets with a firmware flaw that had existed for years. The issue came from a March 2021 update and a build error. It made wallets use a weak software random generator instead of their hardware-based source. This weakened seed security from the expected 128 bits to as low as 40 bits on older devices. Attackers could then brute-force the keys without physically accessing the wallets.

Bitcoin activity jumped sharply after the exploit as affected users moved and consolidated their holdings to limit exposure, pushing active addresses to an eight-month high. But the incident had negligible impact on the price of the crypto asset. Instead, BTC posted an impressive rally, nearing $82,000 last month.

The asset has since pulled back but is trading near $79,500 at the time of writing.

The post Coldcard Exploiter Moves 45% of Wave 3 Loot as Stolen Bitcoin Enters CoinJoins appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Vitalik Buterin has rejected a warning that artificial intelligence could cause Bitcoin to lose half its value by weakening assumptions about the network’s security.

In reply to crypto commentator Liron Shapira, Buterin said the chance of AI actually breaking Bitcoin’s hashing or proof-of-work is “tiny,” while arguing that the harder issue would be moving the network through a security upgrade.

Buterin Sees the Bigger Risk in the Transition

Shapira posted that he had “50% confidence” BTC would crash 50% or more within two years because AI could undermine what people had imagined were Bitcoin’s security guarantees.

Buterin took the other side. He said he is optimistic about cybersecurity over the long run and sees the main risk as managing the transition itself, not a cryptographic failure, arguing Bitcoin should handle network-layer problems, the kind fixed by upgrading clients or mining pools, without needing broad social consensus.

“I expect BTC to handle at least any issues that do not require social consensus well (upgrading clients, mining pools, etc to deal with network-layer hacks is in this category) (and I think the probability of actual breaks on hashes or PoW is tiny),” he wrote.

Shapira came back later with a smaller number. “I’ve updated down to 40%,” he posted, crediting Buterin and a commentator named Eliezer for the shift.

Vista Labs pushed the debate toward coordination, arguing that AI would not need to break SHA-256 if it could shorten the period between finding a vulnerability and exploiting it to less than the time a decentralized network needs to agree on an upgrade.

“Does upgrade latency become the real security constraint?” the account asked.

However, analyst Crypto Patel framed Bitcoin’s strength as its capacity to adapt once new threats appear rather than any promise that it will never face one.

Recent Attacks Show Where AI Can Matter

The concern is not entirely theoretical. As CryptoPotato reported in August, Bitcoin swap service Boltz suspended operations after AI-assisted attacks. The five-person team said automated probing had increased before attacks accelerated, leaving it without the resources to keep operating safely.

Furthermore, a recent security campaign found 4,962 software issues across 390 Bitcoin-related open-source projects in about 30 hours. The tally included 85 critical and 635 high-severity findings.

Another report published on August 10 found that Kimsuky, a North Korea-linked threat actor, had set up local AI environments and collected software for AI execution and automated agents. According to investigators, the group appeared to be preparing AI for malware development, data analysis, and attack techniques.

But replying to Buterin, crypto trader Hazenlee argued that stronger generative AI could make Bitcoin’s scarcity more relevant, given that AI can create content and new tokens cheaply, but cannot simply create ownership of existing BTC or force a decentralized network to accept a false history.

The post Could AI Cut Bitcoin’s Value in Half? Vitalik Buterin Says the Odds Are ‘Tiny’ appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin is consolidating around $80K after a sharp recovery from the $60K area. While the broader structure has shifted constructively, BTC is now facing a significant resistance zone near $80K-$82K, while momentum indicators suggest that the latest advance is losing strength.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

The daily chart shows a clear structural improvement following the strong breakout from the $66K consolidation area. BTC has reclaimed both major moving averages shown on the chart, with the 200-day moving average now around $70K and the 100-day average near $66K. As long as the asset remains above these levels, the broader recovery structure remains intact.

The immediate obstacle, however, is the $80K-$82K resistance zone, which has repeatedly capped the recent leg up. BTC briefly pushed into this area but failed to establish a sustained breakout and has since moved sideways around $79K-$80K. A decisive daily close above $82K would likely strengthen the bullish case and expose the next major resistance area around $95K.

Conversely, rejection from the current zone could trigger a deeper retracement toward the $72K-$74K area, which represents the first major daily support zone. Below that, the $66K region becomes particularly important as the last line of defense before the base of BTC’s recent rally.

The RSI has also cooled considerably from its recent overbought reading above 80. More importantly, the indicator is making lower highs while BTC is testing or approaching previous highs, creating a bearish momentum divergence. This does not necessarily signal an imminent reversal, but it suggests that upside momentum is becoming less convincing and that a breakout may require renewed buying pressure following a short-term consolidation or correction.

BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart

The 4-hour structure presents a more clearly defined ascending channel. Following the sharp breakout from the $72K-$74K region, BTC has been oscillating between the rising channel boundaries, with the lower trendline currently situated around $77K and the upper boundary at $82K.

The price is currently around $79.4K, leaving BTC roughly in the middle-to-upper portion of this range. The $80K level is therefore an important near-term threshold, while the $82K level remains the primary resistance area.

A clean break above $82K, preferably accompanied by sustained 4-hour closes above the channel’s upper boundary, would invalidate the immediate range-bound setup and could open the door toward higher levels. On the other hand, a rejection followed by a loss of the lower trendline at $77K would increase the probability of a move back toward the $72K-$74K support zone.

The latest price action also indicates that the strong impulsive move higher has transitioned into consolidation. This can be constructive if BTC continues to hold the upper part of the range, but a breakdown through the lower channel boundary would suggest that the market needs a deeper correction before another attempt at the highs.

On-Chain Analysis

The Spot Average Order Size chart shows relatively little whale activity around Bitcoin’s current $77K-$80K trading range. In contrast, there was significantly more whale activity around the $60K-$65K lows, where larger orders were heavily concentrated. This positioning may have reflected accumulation near the market bottom, as Bitcoin subsequently rallied sharply from that area toward $80K.

The relatively limited whale activity at current levels could suggest that large participants are not aggressively adding exposure around the recent highs. This does not necessarily imply distribution, but it indicates that the current rally has not been accompanied by the same degree of whale activity seen near the lows.

From a broader perspective, the concentration of larger orders around the $60K-$65K area is notable because it preceded Bitcoin’s substantial recovery. If that activity represented accumulation, the subsequent rally could indicate that some of those positions are now in profit. Meanwhile, the lack of significant whale activity around $77K-$80K leaves the market more dependent on whether buyers can generate enough momentum to break the $80K-$82K resistance zone.

The post Bitcoin Price Analysis: BTC Bulls Need to Break This Key Level to Regain Momentum appeared first on CryptoPotato.

[PRESS RELEASE – Willemstad, Curaçao, September 7th, 2026]

1win is expanding its crypto offering by introducing USDC deposits and withdrawals via the Solana network and by participating in new Web3 community initiatives, including Sona’s fundraising campaign supporting emergency efforts in Nepal. The developments come as the company continues to broaden the role of digital assets across its products, with 1win Token also approaching its upcoming TGE.

1win users can now make both deposits and withdrawals in USDC via the Solana network, with the functionality available across all geographies currently serviced by the platform. The integration provides users with another option for moving stablecoins onto and off the platform while benefiting from Solana’s high-speed, low-cost infrastructure.

USDC deposits via Solana start at 5 USDC, while SOL deposits are available from approximately 0.0099353 SOL, equivalent to around $1 at the time the threshold was set. These are almost the lowest minimum deposit requirements currently available on 1win.

The update comes as 1win continues to develop its broader crypto offering. The company has also announced that 1win Token is set to launch on Solana, with further details on the upcoming TGE and listing to be shared through the project’s official channels, including the @1winToken account on X.

Alongside its latest crypto product updates, 1win has also joined a fundraising initiative launched by the Solana Foundation following the major flooding emergency in Nepal on August 26.

The campaign turned the profile picture of Solana’s official X account into a charity auction, divided into nine zones that companies and Web3 projects could bid on for logo placements. All funds raised through the initiative were directed toward emergency relief efforts in Nepal.

1win secured the Top Center placement with a $16,276 contribution, the second-largest donation made through the initiative. Overall, the auction raised $166,946.50 for relief efforts in Nepal. In parallel, 1win has supported relief efforts on the ground through separate donations to the charitable organization Mountain Heart Nepal.

The new payment option and participation in the Nepal initiative add to 1win’s expanding crypto activities, while further developments around 1win Token are expected to be announced closer to its TGE

About 1win

Founded in 2016, 1win is a global crypto entertainment platform operating across Asia, Latin America, and Africa. 1win offers a wide range of products adapted to regional audiences. The brand has active collaborations with international public figures, including football legend Luis Suarez. In 2026, 1win welcomed rapper Tyga, UFC legend Ilia Topuria, Olympic champion and UFC fighter Gable Steveson, and reggaeton star Nicky Jam as members of the 1win VIP community.

The post 1win Expands Crypto Offering With USDC on Solana and New Ecosystem Developments appeared first on CryptoPotato.