The push for the Clarity Act highlights the urgency for a robust regulatory framework, potentially solidifying the U.S.'s leadership in crypto.

The post Treasury Secretary urges Senate to prioritize Clarity Act for crypto regulation appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Iran's barter trade with China may bolster its economic resilience, reducing immediate conflict risks but affecting global market dynamics.

The post Iran dodges sanctions using barter system to buy billions of dollars of Chinese goods appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The potential shift towards diplomacy post-midterms could stabilize markets, but threats of escalation may hinder a peaceful resolution.

The post Trump suggests Iran conflict may end post-midterms, threatens Pickaxe Mountain attack appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Trump's strategy risks prolonged U.S.-Iran tensions, reducing chances for a 2026 deal and impacting global diplomatic and economic stability.

The post Trump’s Iran strategy mirrors post-9/11 military tactics, dims 2026 deal prospects appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The intensified Russian strikes on Mykolaiv highlight the ongoing strategic conflict, potentially diminishing Ukraine's chances of reclaiming Crimea.

The post Russian air strikes kill four in Ukraine’s port city Mykolaiv appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent ‘Strongly Urges’ Senate To Pass Clarity Act

U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent urged lawmakers to move forward with the crypto Clarity Act when they return from recess next week. 

Writing on X Wednesday, Bessent said that the bill would stop “bad actors” from exploiting important digital asset tech. 

Lawmakers were hoping a crucial vote on the long-awaited crypto market structure bill would go ahead in August before their five-week recess. But it was delayed and the Senate will now vote on it next week. 

“When the Senate returns from August recess, I strongly urge everyone to remain at the negotiating table, agree to the motion to proceed, and continue the legislative process,” he said. 

“Failing to do so would send a troubling signal to our allies and adversaries alike that America is unwilling to lead on the future of digital assets and willing to forgo enhanced national security tools to combat their misuse.”

Just in July, Bessent said lawmakers had to pass the Clarity Act if they wanted to be “on the side of American Exceptionalism” — and quoted Satoshi Nakamoto in another social media post. 

“America will lead or America won’t,” he wrote at the time “It’s not more complicated than that. I believe Satoshi once said it best: ‘If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry.'”

First passed last year by the House of Representatives, the Clarity Act drafts a framework to formally divide oversight between regulators, distinguishing which digital assets are securities, commodities or stablecoins. 

The digital asset industry has long been calling for such rules to be set in stone. 

But the draft legislation has largely been stalled this year, mostly because the banking lobby clashed with crypto companies over paying customers stablecoin yield. 

A new draft tackling the issue of ethics started circulating in July, banning government officials from promoting or making money from crypto — something Democrats have criticized President Trump’s family for doing. 

Despite the changes, a group of Democrats said the bill fell short and wanted amendments. 

President Donald Trump has urged lawmakers to get the legislation over the line. In August, he said that in order for the U.S. to remain the “undisputed leader in Bitcoin and crypto,” they had to pass the “very, very powerful legislation.”

This post US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent ‘Strongly Urges’ Senate To Pass Clarity Act first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Jack Dorsey’s Block Becomes Latest Bitcoin-Focused Company To Apply for Banking Charter

Bitcoin-focused Block Inc. has become the latest company to apply for a U.S. banking charter. 

The company, which manages Square, Cash App, and Bitkey, said Wednesday that it had submitted an application to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to establish Builders Bank & Trust, N.A.

Block joins a long-list of digital asset firms that have received conditional approval or are awaiting approval from the regulator to have the license. The charter would allow companies — if fully approved — to have certain banking powers, such as custody assets and move client funds.  

“Building on Block’s experience in the digital asset space, our history with Square Financial Services, and the deep banking expertise of the team we’ve assembled, we believe Builders Bank is well positioned to support Block’s broader vision of economic empowerment,” Lee Woolley, who would serve as President and CEO of Builders Bank, said in a statement. 

Block said that, if approved, Builders Bank would operate as a federally regulated national trust bank under OCC supervision and provide custody and related fiduciary services, including for bitcoin and stablecoins. 

A number of top crypto companies have received conditional approval, including Coinbase, Circle, Crypto.com, and Paxos.

Decentralized financial protocol World Liberty Financial, backed by U.S. President Donald Trump, also received approval this year. 

Block CEO and founder Jack Dorsey, a Bitcoin maximalist, has been pushing for the biggest and oldest cryptocurrency to become everyday money. 

His point-of-sale products, Square, last year rolled out bitcoin acceptance for millions of eligible U.S. small businesses, with no setup required and transactions instantly converted to dollars at checkout. 

This post Jack Dorsey’s Block Becomes Latest Bitcoin-Focused Company To Apply for Banking Charter first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Steak ‘n Shake Says Sales Grew Double Digits Since Bitcoin Adoption

Burger restaurant franchise Steak ‘n Shake has said that accepting bitcoin payments has helped the company grow. 

Writing on its X account Tuesday, the Indianapolis, Indiana-based company said since accepting the largest cryptocurrency, it has achieved double-digit same-store sales growth. 

It added: “And this quarter has been extraordinary, with franchise-partners same-store sales gaining 19%.”

The firm last year started accepting Bitcoin payments, using the Lightning Network to do so. 

It added that it would add the cryptocurrency to its balance sheet and announced in January that it had added $10 million in Bitcoin to its strategic reserve.

Back in April, Steak ‘n Shake Chief MAHA Officer Michael Boes told attendees at the Bitcoin 2026 Conference that Bitcoin has become a core driver of the chain’s business performance. 

Same-store sales rose 11% quarter over quarter in Q2 2025 and accelerated to 15% in Q3 2025, outpacing major rivals including McDonald’s, Taco Bell, and Domino’s. 

He called it the highest same-store sales growth of any restaurant in the industry — and all because bitcoin on Lightning is cheaper and faster than traditional electronic payment methods. 

It works like this: When customers pay with bitcoin instead of a credit card, Steak ‘n Shake saves roughly 50% on processing fees. Traditional credit card processors charge merchants between 2.5% and 3.5% per transaction. 

“Bitcoin is real money made with real energy,” Boes said at the time. 

The company last year also toyed with the idea of accepting other cryptocurrencies but scrapped the idea after a poll on X revealed people thought that only bitcoin was needed. 

This post Steak ‘n Shake Says Sales Grew Double Digits Since Bitcoin Adoption first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Iran Continues Using Bitcoin To Keep Economy Stable: Report

Iran is continuing to use bitcoin as a way to skirt around sanctions as the country’s central bank turns a blind eye, according to reports. 

The Financial Times on Wednesday reported that the Middle Eastern country was using cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, to settle cross-border transactions through Iranian crypto exchanges after the central bank advised its countrymen to do anything necessary to help the economy. 

Citing conversations with businesses, regime insiders and analysts, the newspaper said that the central bank had “quietly encouraged traders” to get money flowing to help its struggling economy. 

Bitcoin is proving to be a tried and tested way of doing so. 

One business insider reportedly told the newspaper that the central bank doesn’t ask any questions about how money is transferred. 

Iran has been sanctioned for decades, and a sharp escalation beginning in late 2025 — UN snapback, EU measures and expanded U.S. energy sanctions — was compounded by war with the U.S. and Israel starting in February 2026 and a naval blockade that has cut oil exports by more than 80%.

The country also has one of the highest rates of inflation in the world. 

Iran started a bitcoin-backed insurance service for its counties shipping companies earlier this year.

The U.S. in July said that it had frozen crypto linked to the Iranian regime, mostly in the form of Tether’s stablecoin. 

Stablecoins like Tether’s USDT can be frozen by the company that issues the asset but bitcoin, being decentralized and having no single issuer, cannot. 

The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control in July said Iran had been dodging sanctions by accepting pay in bitcoin from ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. 

OFAC said at the time that Hormuz Safe, developed by Iran’s Ministry of Economy, “accepts payment in Bitcoin and other digital assets” so it can bypass sanctions. 

The U.S. and Israel struck Iran in February 2026. Fighting has continued in phases since, punctuated by a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire in April and a short-lived memorandum in June. 

Both ended up collapsing, and there is currently no ceasefire in place. 

This post Iran Continues Using Bitcoin To Keep Economy Stable: Report first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

VerifiedX Launches $15 Million Financing Round to Deploy Institutional Bitcoin Infrastructure

VerifiedX (verifiedx.io), the programmable financial operating system for Bitcoin and intelligent assets, today announced that its Foundation has launched a $15 million financing round and the first institutional investors have already invested. Initial capital will fund VerifiedX’s institutional Bitcoin distribution.

Cantor Fitzgerald is serving as VerifiedX’s investment banking partner in connection with the financing. The Foundation is not yet disclosing the identities or terms of the initial investors.

Part of the capital is allocated to expand custody relationships with partners including BitGo, the digital-asset custodian listed on the New York Stock Exchange, which will hold vBTC (VerifiedX’s Bitcoin-collateralized token) and vBTC.b (its counterpart on Base, Coinbase’s Ethereum layer-2 network). BitGo is a qualified custodian, meaning U.S. custody rules allow registered investment advisers to hold client assets there.

The capital also funds listings. Tier-one centralized exchanges will be listing vBTC and VFX, VerifiedX’s native token, with a first announcement expected within weeks. The round also supports borrow-and-lend programs: facilities that let a holder borrow against Bitcoin, or lend it out for a return, without sacrificing ownership or locking redemption rights.

“Nearly every way to put Bitcoin to work on-chain today asks the holder to swap it for someone else’s IOU. It’s the reason less than 1% of all Bitcoin held by institutions is earning any yield. vBTC is a game-changer in that regard, and this round funds the custody, exchange and lending rails that will allow institutions to use vBTC and natively turn their Bitcoin into productive financial capital,” said Brian May, a member of the VerifiedX Foundation.

With a wrapped Bitcoin token, the industry’s usual route, the holder hands Bitcoin to a custodian, or to a small group of signers acting together, and receives an off-chain representation on another network. The stand-in is only as good as whoever holds the Bitcoin behind it.

vBTC is built the other way around. When a holder creates a vBTC token, the VerifiedX network generates a unique native Bitcoin address inside each token and the holder deposits Bitcoin to their own self-custodial deposit address. The Bitcoin stays in that address, visible on Bitcoin’s own ledger and never leaves the Bitcoin ecosystem. Deposits and withdrawals are authorized by threshold signatures spread across VerifiedX’s validators, so no single party holds the key, and a holder that would rather not rely on the network’s validators can run its own and restrict signing to their own validators exclusively. The holder can redeem to native Bitcoin at any time. A holder can use vBTC for payments, trading, as collateral, in lending or in treasury. vBTC.b puts the same design on Base, so the asset can be used in applications there non-synthetically.

About VerifiedX

VerifiedX is a financial operating system for Bitcoin, intelligent, and alternative assets, enabling self-custodial ownership, instant settlement, programmable finance, native Bitcoin utility, and agentic financial infrastructure. Through products including vBTC, BFLY, and PulseXAI, VerifiedX connects institutions, users, and autonomous systems through a unified blockchain ecosystem framework.

Its ecosystem includes:

• vBTC & vBTC.b (BTC)
• BFLY payments and click to earn infrastructure
• SwitchBlade wallet technology
• PulseXAI generative and tokenized intelligence
• Institutional settlement architecture
• Consensus driven programmability
• Canonical interoperability systems

Further VerifiedX Inquiries:

Website: https://verifiedx.io/

Discord: https://discord.gg/7cd5ebDQCj

X: https://twitter.com/vfxblockchain

Github: https://github.com/verifiedxblockchain

Email: info@verifiedx.io

PulseXAI and BFLY are trademarks of VerifiedX. Copyright 2026 VerifiedX. All rights reserved.

This post VerifiedX Launches $15 Million Financing Round to Deploy Institutional Bitcoin Infrastructure first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Bitcoin Magazine.

Osmosis has frozen 22.65 BTC after a flaw in Nomic’s custom forwarding system allowed a double-spend that left the allBTC asset partly unbacked by Bitcoin.

allBTC is issued against a basket of Bitcoin variants held on Osmosis, including nBTC from the Nomic bridge. The official allBTC dashboard showed 110.57 allBTC in circulation and 39.84 nBTC in the basket at the reporting cutoff.

Osmosis said the nBTC was created from false vouchers, putting 36.03% of allBTC’s backing in question and leaving about 70.73 BTC-equivalent of other backing.

The statement also noted that neither its chain nor the Inter-Blockchain Communication protocol was compromised, and the bug was in Nomic’s forwarding logic.

SlowMist’s incident database also described the event as a Nomic bridge double-spend.

The public disclosure came more than two months after the apparent exploit activity. On-chain researcher Rarma traced the principal minting to June 25 and said 22.65060846 allBTC created during July 17 activity remained unmoved when the trace was published.

Nomic and allBTC inflows and outflows have been frozen, while allBTC minting and redemption are paused. Those restrictions block entry and exit through the affected functions while the backing gap remains unresolved.

Governance now carries the recovery of the Bitcoin balance

The frozen BTC has not been seized or returned to the basket. Osmosis said it plans to ask governance to confiscate the 22.65 BTC and use Bitcoin accumulated in the community pool to cover the remainder.

If governance recovers the full frozen amount, it would still need about 17.19 BTC to replace the 39.84 BTC impairment. No matching seizure or recapitalization measure appeared among the latest 20 on-chain proposals as of Sept. 9.

Osmosis governance administers the allBTC contract, while a 3-of-6 moderator subDAO can pause the pool or mark a constituent asset as corrupted. Nomic’s Bitcoin custody documentation separately says reserve disbursals require signatures representing more than 90% of its signatory set’s voting power.

Until enough valid backing is restored, allBTC holders remain collectively exposed because claims on the basket exceed its valid BTC-equivalent assets.

That does not establish a realized haircut for any holder, but redemption at full parity now depends on the governance decision and the size of any community-pool contribution.

The post Osmosis freezes 22.65 BTC after Nomic forwarding bug compromises Bitcoin reserves appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Tether is pushing USDT into the private-credit market as defaults and withdrawals strain the $3 trillion industry.

On Sept. 9, the stablecoin issuer and London-based Fasanara Capital launched StableFund with $400 million in combined sponsor capital and plans to raise up to $3 billion more from institutional investors.

Fasanara will manage the portfolio, while Tether will help originate USDT-linked financing opportunities and provide settlement and treasury infrastructure.

The expansion takes Tether beyond a crypto lending market it already dominates and closer to financing businesses and consumers in the real economy. Galaxy Research estimates that Tether controlled around 60% of the $23 billion centralized crypto-lending market at the end of June, giving it roughly $13.5 billion of outstanding secured loans.

StableFund therefore represents an attempt to extend Tether’s existing credit operation into a much larger asset class, at a time when regulators and investors are scrutinizing private credit more closely

Private credit's boom is running into a tougher test

StableFund arrives after years of rapid growth turned private lending into one of Wall Street's most sought-after businesses, but the credit cycle is becoming less forgiving.

An August Wall Street Journal analysis found worsening loan health and investor returns across publicly traded funds overseen by Ares Management, Blackstone, Blue Owl Capital and Golub Capital. Defaults at those vehicles reached their highest levels since at least 2021, while Blue Owl's default rate rose to 2.8% in the second quarter, its highest in at least five years.

Large managers have pushed back against suggestions that the deterioration signals a broader crisis, arguing that portfolio credit quality remains resilient. Default rates also remain below levels reached during more severe episodes such as the Covid-19 shock.

Still, the deterioration comes alongside redemption pressure from investors and concern about heavily indebted borrowers, including software companies facing possible disruption from artificial intelligence.

That makes the timing notable for Tether, which is entering the market with ambitions to draw billions of dollars from the same institutional capital base increasingly focused on credit quality and liquidity.

In May, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) warned that private credit has yet to be tested through a prolonged economic downturn and highlighted weaker borrower quality, high leverage, opaque valuations and growing links between private funds, banks and insurers as potential vulnerabilities. It also pointed to the rising use of payment-in-kind arrangements and rising defaults as evidence of borrower stress.

The watchdog specifically flagged the growth of funds offering redemption options, saying liquidity pressures could amplify stress when investors seek their money back.

StableFund is structured as an evergreen vehicle, allowing it to continue raising and deploying capital rather than winding down at a predetermined maturity, though Tether and Fasanara have not publicly detailed its redemption terms.

That does not mean StableFund carries the same risks already emerging elsewhere in private credit. Its strategy differs from much of the corporate direct lending highlighted in recent stress reports.

Fasanara, which manages more than $6 billion, plans to deploy the fund into short-duration, asset-backed loans across a fintech network spanning more than 60 countries. The portfolio will include financing for small and medium-sized businesses and consumers, as well as trade receivables and supply-chain credit.

Tether's share of the downside remains unclear

What separates StableFund from a conventional Fasanara vehicle is Tether's position near the front of the financing pipeline.

The USDT issuer will act as co-sponsor, originator, and adviser, sourcing opportunities linked to its stablecoin network while supplying on- and off-ramp connectivity and treasury rails.

That extends Tether beyond providing a token borrowers and lenders can use for settlement and gives it a role in identifying where capital could be deployed.

Fasanara, however, remains the investment manager with responsibility for deploying the portfolio. The announcement does not say Tether will make final underwriting decisions, nor does it establish that USDT will serve as loan principal, collateral, or the fund's denomination.

Therefore, the bigger unanswered question is how much financial risk Tether is assuming alongside that operational role.

The companies described the $400 million anchor as a joint commitment but did not divide it between the sponsors. They also did not disclose fund leverage, fees, or whether either sponsor's capital will absorb losses before money raised from third-party institutions.

Those terms become more consequential if defaults continue rising across private markets. A large junior commitment from Tether would create a different risk profile than a smaller investment alongside outside institutions on equal terms.

The post Tether is pushing USDT into a cracking $3 trillion Wall Street debt machine as defaults hit five-year highs at major funds appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The US Treasury has set a $6 billion ceiling for a Sept. 10 buyback of older long-dated bonds, giving dealers more room to offload inventory. For Bitcoin, the question is whether that relief can extend beyond bond trading into broader financing conditions.

The tentative schedule published Sept. 9 targets nominal Treasury securities with 10 to 20 years remaining. The ceiling is triple the previous $2 billion limit and exceeds the minimum expansion Treasury announced Aug. 19, when it promised at least $4 billion in operations.

The operation is scheduled for 1:40 p.m. to 2 p.m. Eastern, with settlement on Sept. 11. Eligible maturities span Sept. 11, 2036, through Sept. 10, 2046. The final securities list is due at 11 a.m. Eastern on operation day.

Treasury’s buyback rules describe liquidity support as a predictable outlet for selling off-the-run securities, meaning older issues. This differs from cash-management buybacks, which smooth government cash balances and bill issuance.

A May 2025 IMF working paper by Jing Zhou found modest improvements in Treasury trading liquidity and reduced dealer holdings, with stronger effects when inventories were high. That suggests an outlet for older bonds can ease the burden of carrying them and make intermediation easier.

Treasury retires purchased bonds at settlement rather than lending them back into the market, so the potential benefit is less inventory for dealers to carry.

The ceiling is a maximum face amount, with no minimum purchase commitment. Treasury may accept less or nothing, depending on offers. Repurchases can use debt-sale proceeds and general-fund money, so the amount alone does not create net liquidity or constitute Federal Reserve quantitative easing.

The evidence Bitcoin’s thesis needs

A large purchase would show bonds changing hands, but it does not directly measure dealers’ remaining balance-sheet pressure. A small one would require looking at offered prices before declaring the operation ineffective.

Next comes market functioning: narrower gaps between buying and selling prices, and less strained pricing of older bonds relative to comparable newer issues. Those measures are more directly relevant to the program’s purpose than a fall in yields alone.

For Bitcoin, the hypothesis needs to be strengthened to reach broader funding conditions, including borrowing secured by securities. Easier dealer intermediation would be a plausible first link, while persistent bond or funding strain would leave that proposed relief unestablished.

The Sept. 10 accepted purchases and Sept. 11 scheduled settlement are separate milestones. The stronger signal for Bitcoin’s liquidity thesis would be sustained improvement in bond trading and funding after the operation.

The post Treasury’s $6 billion bond intervention creates a stealth test for Bitcoin’s next move appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin’s on-chain sell-side risk has fallen to less than half its August peak, easing one measure of potential selling pressure even as a large block of older coins remains held at acquisition prices above the market.

Analytics firm Glassnode’s Sept. 9 report, using on-chain observations through Sept. 7, puts its Sell-Side Risk Ratio at 7 basis points per day on a seven-day basis, down from 16 basis points at August’s peak.

Long-term holders also accounted for 47% of realized profit, compared with 88% at the August peak. Older holders are contributing less of the market’s realized profit, although that percentage does not measure their share of all Bitcoin sales.

The Sell-Side Risk Ratio adds on-chain profits and losses and divides the total by realized capitalization. It measures value realization relative to that capital base, indicating potential selling pressure.

A ratio below half its earlier level does not mean the volume of Bitcoin sold on exchanges has halved.

Glassnode separately reports that the realized-profit spike on Sept. 3 was less than half the size of August’s spike. That compares profit spikes, distinct from the seven-day risk measure. Together, the findings describe quieter realization and a changed mix of holders taking profits.

The report identifies roughly 1.07 million BTC acquired between $83,000 and $86,000, almost all held by long-term holders, and says that block barely changed over 30 days.

The holdings remain potential supply, while the realization data describe what holders have recently been doing.

Exchange demand is a separate test

Reports noted negative exchange spot flow in Sept. 8. Spot cumulative volume delta (CVD) remained negative despite improving, meaning aggressive exchange selling still outweighed aggressive buying in that measure.

CVD tracks the balance of executed trading, and sell-side risk tracks on-chain profit-and-loss realization relative to realized capitalization. A lower reading in the latter does not require the former to turn positive.

Bitcoin holders are realizing less profit and loss relative to the capital base, while the overhead coins remain largely in place. Treating that entire block as immediate selling pressure would overstate the evidence.

A sustained advance would still require buyers to absorb the supply that actually comes to market.

The post Bitcoin sell pressure reaches one-month low as long-term holders slow down profit taking appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Hunter Biden’s LAPTOP token left nearly 80% of traders underwater within hours despite being pitched as an answer to memecoin grift. Hunter Biden is the son of former US President Joe Biden.

Data from Bubblemaps showed that 12,151 of the token’s 15,206 traders lost money, while only 3,026 were profitable and 29 were at break-even or held positions that could not be priced.

Most of the losses were relatively small, with 11,311 wallets down less than $1,000. But 726 traders lost between $1,000 and $10,000, another 112 lost between $10,000 and $100,000, and two were down between $100,000 and $1 million.

The other side of the trade was far more concentrated. Just 10 wallets made between $100,000 and $1 million, while another 78 earned between $10,000 and $100,000.

Those 88 traders collectively generated about $5.57 million in profit, helping leave aggregate trader P&L slightly positive at roughly $178,000 despite almost four out of every five participants losing money.

The outcome cuts directly against one of Biden’s main arguments for launching the token. He had criticized President Donald Trump’s TRUMP memecoin for leaving nearly 1 million wallets with what he described as about $3.8 billion in collective losses, while promising that LAPTOP would include an airdrop for some of those burned investors.

“I understand the cynicism,” Biden said before the launch, questioning why he would support an industry product that had been “misused by grifters.” He added:

“You should not expect me or anyone else to make this token more valuable for you.”

However, LAPTOP had created another sharply divided group of memecoin winners and losers within minutes.

LAPTOP’s anti-grift pitch met a two-minute peak

LAPTOP began trading on Base at about 8:02 a.m. ET and peaked roughly two minutes later, blockchain analytics firm Arkham Intelligence said.

The token’s fully diluted valuation briefly flashed about $144 billion even though the liquidity pool contained only around $48,000. The valuation did not mean investors had poured anywhere close to $144 billion into LAPTOP.

The thin liquidity meant relatively small trades could move its quoted price dramatically and produce an enormous theoretical valuation.

LAPTOP dropped more than 95% over the following half hour as the market struggled to establish a price.

Arkham later identified two principal on-chain trading pools. The official Aerodrome pool contained about $83,000 in USDC, while a Uniswap pool held roughly $380,000.

The latter liquidity appeared to have been deployed in a range that did not become active until LAPTOP had already fallen about 90% from its opening surge.

That structure created dramatically different outcomes depending on when traders entered the market.

Blockchain analysis firm Lookonchain identified one trader who spent just 900 USDC to acquire 2,268.56 LAPTOP at about 40 cents each, then rapidly sold the position for 251,270 USDC at an average price near $111. The trade generated more than $250,000 in profit, roughly a 278-fold return.

Another wallet spent 100 ETH, then worth about $249,800, to buy 9,124 LAPTOP before selling 8,480 tokens for 472 ETH, worth about $1.18 million. The address still held 644 LAPTOP when Lookonchain reviewed the trade, taking its realized and unrealized gains above $1 million at the time.

For traders arriving seconds or minutes later, the economics were reversed.

One wallet withdrew $250,000 from Binance before the launch and spent $200,000 buying 919 LAPTOP at an average price around $218. Lookonchain later valued the position at roughly $3,000, an unrealized loss of about $197,000.

Fresh wallets add another question to LAPTOP’s launch

Bubblemaps found an unusual feature among LAPTOP’s largest holders: roughly 60% were “fresh wallets,” addresses funded within the previous 10 days that showed no earlier activity.

Most were funded on the day LAPTOP launched.

That does not, by itself, show the wallets were coordinated, controlled by insiders, or had advance information. Newly created addresses are common around token launches, particularly when traders separate activity across wallets.

However, the concentration adds scrutiny to a launch in which getting into the market even minutes earlier produced radically different financial outcomes.

It also complicates Biden’s attempt to distinguish LAPTOP from the political memecoins he criticized.

The project has a fixed supply of 1 billion tokens. Its website shows 20% allocated across two community airdrops, although the first distribution gives only 2% of the total supply to wallets that lost money trading TRUMP. Another 30% goes to founders, including Biden, with those tokens locked for six months and vesting over two years.

An additional 30% is tied to 30 predetermined political, crypto, and cultural outcomes. Tokens associated with predictions that come true are permanently burned, while those attached to failed predictions are earmarked for charity. Another 5% of supply is allocated directly to charity.

Biden also explicitly warned buyers before trading began that neither he nor anyone else should be expected to increase the token’s value. He framed ownership as an expression rather than an investment and said the project was intended to reclaim the laptop episode that dominated years of coverage of him.

Biden wrote:

“They turned laptop into a weapon. I turned it into a token.”

That token now faces a different test. The founders’ allocation remains locked, removing an immediate source of insider selling, but LAPTOP must build substantially deeper liquidity to avoid the extreme price dislocations that defined its first hours.

The post Hunter Biden launched LAPTOP to cure memecoin grift and created a whole new batch of losers appeared first on CryptoSlate.

If a message titled "Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Vulnerability" landed in your inbox this week, apparently from Trezor, telling you that one in four devices shipped with a defective chip and inviting you to run an entropy check in your browser, stop. Do not click anything in it. Trezor did not send it.

The company confirmed on Wednesday that attackers had gotten into its email infrastructure and used it to blast a fake security warning to customers. The email is a seed harvester dressed up as an apology, and it is one of the more convincing phishing attempts the hardware wallet space has seen in years.

What Does the Fake Trezor Security Alert Actually Claim?

The email opens with the tone of a company confessing to a disaster. It claims Trezor's engineering team found a hardware-level defect in the STM32 microcontrollers inside its devices, that the flaw was baked in at the factory, and that roughly one device in four is affected. It says the bug produces recovery phrases with as little as 40 bits of entropy, leaving seeds open to brute-force cracking.

It then does something clever. It tells the reader never to enter a recovery phrase on a website or share it with anyone. Two paragraphs later, it invites that same reader to click a link and run an "entropy check tool" that verifies BIP-39 checksums across 12, 18 and 24-word phrases, validates SLIP-39 shares, and exports extended public keys.

That contradiction is the entire scam. The warning buys credibility, then the tool collects exactly what the warning told you to protect. Anyone who works through that checker hands over enough material to drain their wallet, and in the case of an xpub export, hands over a full map of their addresses and balances even without the seed.

Why Did Trezor Users Fall For The STM32 Story?

Because a nearly identical bug was real six weeks ago, just at a different company.

Starting on 30 July 2026, attackers exploited a firmware flaw in Coinkite's Coldcard wallets. A regression shipped in March 2021 caused affected devices to generate seed phrases using a weak software randomness source instead of the hardware random number generator, cutting effective entropy from around 128 bits to as low as 40 bits on some models. Attackers drained roughly 1,816 BTC, close to 116 million dollars, from more than 5,200 addresses across four waves. Later tallies pushed the figure past 130 million dollars.

Read that against the phishing email again. Forty bits of entropy. Seeds generated before a cutoff date. Brute-force exposure. Migrate to a new seed. The scammers did not invent a threat model. They copied a documented one, swapped the brand name, and sent it to a customer list that had spent August reading about exactly this failure mode. That is why it worked on people who normally spot phishing at a glance.

How Did The Phishing Email Come From A Real Trezor Address?

This is the part that stripped away the usual defences. The message did not arrive from a lookalike domain with a swapped character. It arrived through Trezor's own legitimate sending infrastructure after attackers compromised a third-party email provider.

Trezor said it took down the domain used in the attack and is investigating how the attackers gained access to its legitimate domain. The company has said wallets, private keys and recovery backups stored on devices were never exposed. The compromise sat in the marketing pipeline, not the product.

The problem may be wider than one brand. Casa co-founder Nick Neuman said he had heard of the same campaign hitting Bitbox users and suggested a shared marketing email provider had been compromised.

What Should Trezor Owners Do Right Now?

If you only opened and read the email, nothing has happened to your funds. Delete it and move on.

If you clicked the link and entered any portion of your recovery phrase, a SLIP-39 share, or your device PIN into that page, treat the seed as burned. Generate a fresh seed on a device you trust and move everything to the new addresses immediately. Do not wait to see whether anything happens, and do not reuse the old backup for anything.

If you exported an extended public key, your funds are not directly at risk, but the attacker can now watch your balances and link your addresses. That makes you a target for follow-up scams, including phone calls and physical letters, both of which Trezor customers have already reported this year.

Going forward, the rule is unchanged and it is the only rule that matters. No legitimate wallet manufacturer will ever ask you to type your recovery phrase into a browser, for any reason, including a check that claims to protect you. Verify announcements on trezor.io or the verified Trezor account on X, and treat unexpected email as hostile regardless of what address it appears to come from.

Is This Part Of A Bigger Pattern In 2026?

It is, and the pattern is not about broken devices.

This is the third failure at a Trezor vendor in four weeks. An August incident at ShipMonk, the partner handling Trezor order fulfilment, pushed the number of exposed customers above 80,000 by early September, leaking names, phone numbers and home addresses. Trezor had already warned 66,000 users after a support portal breach in 2024, and rival SafePal leaked close to 40,000 records last month.

The hardware keeps holding. The companies sitting around the hardware, holding customer contact details, keep leaking. Combine a leaked customer list with a compromised sending domain and a real vulnerability at a competitor, and you get a phishing email that reads like the genuine article.

For anyone holding coins on a hardware wallet, the practical takeaway is that your device being secure and your data being secure are now two separate questions, and only one of them is in your hands.

Hunter Biden launched a memecoin on Wednesday morning built around the laptop that made him a political punchline, pitched it as a corrective to the political token grift, and watched it lose nearly all of its value before the first hour of trading was out. The irony was not lost on anyone.

What Is The $LAPTOP Memecoin And Why Did Hunter Biden Launch It?

$LAPTOP went live on Base, the Coinbase-built Ethereum layer 2, at 8:00 AM ET on 9 September 2026, with a fixed supply of one billion tokens.

Biden framed it as reclaiming a symbol. "They turned laptop into a weapon. I turned it into a token," he posted, while explicitly warning holders not to expect him to support the price. He pitched the project as a memecoin built around resilience, redemption and recovery, and aimed a direct shot at the incumbent political token, arguing that close to one million wallets had lost a combined 3.8 billion dollars holding $TRUMP.

The structure was unusual for a celebrity launch. Thirty percent to founders including Biden, locked for six months and vesting over two years. Twenty percent to airdrops. Ten percent to liquidity. Five percent each to a foundation treasury and to charity. And thirty percent tied to a list of public predictions, including a Democratic win in 2028, a new Bitcoin all-time high, and $LAPTOP flipping $TRUMP by market cap. Tokens tied to predictions that come true get burned. Tokens tied to predictions that fail go to charity.

On paper, that is a more thoughtful design than most political tokens get. It did not survive contact with the order book.

How Fast Did The $LAPTOP Price Actually Crash?

Very fast, and the exact numbers depend on which pool you were watching.

By one widely cited account the token fell from a high near 199 dollars to an all-time low of 1.36 dollars in 90 minutes, a 98% wipeout. Other data put the peak at 190.81 dollars with a low of 3.70 dollars inside the first hour, settling near 4.77 dollars. DEXScreener showed a spike as high as 316.75 dollars within minutes of launch, with the token near 6 dollars by midday UTC.

The valuations in that window were pure arithmetic fiction. Arkham data showed the fully diluted valuation briefly touching 144 billion dollars while the liquidity pool held around 48,000 dollars. The Block reported a peak market capitalisation near 110 billion dollars before a decline of more than 99%.

That gap is the whole story. Multiply a thin, illiquid float by a headline supply of one billion and you can print any market cap you like. It means nothing. With only 10% of supply allocated to liquidity against a 35% unlock at launch, a handful of sell orders from airdrop claimants was always going to be enough to break the price.

Did $LAPTOP Really Compensate The $TRUMP Losers?

This is where the viral framing falls apart, and it is worth correcting because it is being repeated everywhere.

The headline was "20% airdropped to people who lost money on $TRUMP." The actual breakdown is different. Of that 20%, only 2% of total supply was earmarked for traders who lost money on Trump's memecoin, distributed through partner exchanges setting their own eligibility rules. Another 8% went to subscribers of Biden's Substack as of 6 September. The remaining 10% is a discretionary later round, with timing and recipients decided by the foundation.

So the compensation slice was one tenth of what the headline implied, routed through exchanges with unpublished methodology and no confirmed claim path for a wallet that simply held $TRUMP down from its January 2025 peak. Meanwhile the largest single airdrop tranche went to Biden's own newsletter list.

The second 10% is arguably the bigger issue for anyone still holding. A discretionary, undated airdrop is not a distribution schedule, it is supply overhang that can land whenever the foundation decides.

Who Was Actually Positioned Before The Launch?

On-chain data from the first day paints an uncomfortable picture.

A multisig wallet tagged by Arkham as belonging to the project received 100 million tokens, one tenth of supply, a week before launch, and had offloaded roughly 42.5 million of them. Four days before launch, 15.5 million tokens went to market maker GSR through an intermediary address, and around 14.5 million tokens, the largest single pre-launch allocation, went to an unidentified wallet roughly two hours before trading opened.

The buyer side looked much worse. Bubblemaps found that more than 80% of wallets that bought the token were underwater after launch, over 11,500 wallets in total, and that roughly 60% of the top holders were fresh wallets funded within the previous 10 days.

None of this has been established as wrongdoing, and pre-launch allocations to market makers are standard practice. But the shape is familiar: insiders and market makers holding inventory before the open, retail buying the first green candle, and a liquidity pool far too shallow to absorb what came next.

Is This The End Of Political Memecoins?

Probably not, though the half-life keeps shrinking.

$TRUMP took months to complete its drawdown from a January 2025 peak above 73 dollars to a current level near 2.22 dollars. $LAPTOP did the equivalent in roughly the time it takes to make coffee. At least 14 copycat tokens appeared within an hour of launch across other chains, some posting absurd valuations against almost no volume, which is its own signal about who is still playing this game.

The genuinely interesting question is whether the prediction-burn mechanism does anything over time, since 30% of supply sits in a structure that either retires tokens or sends them to charity depending on real-world outcomes. That is at least a novel attempt at something other than launch-and-leave. Whether anyone is still holding by the time those events resolve is a separate matter.

For now, the lesson is the one memecoin traders keep relearning. A token that promises to fix the last grift is still a token with 10% liquidity, a 35% day-one unlock, and no mechanism that makes the price go up.

Bitcoin Loan Liquidated: The Tax Consequences of a Forced Sale in Austria

Pledging Bitcoin as collateral to raise a loan: as long as the coins merely serve as security and are not disposed of in economic terms, there is generally no Bitcoin sale yet. The picture changes once the price falls and the lender liquidates the collateral.

If the pledged Bitcoin are sold or finally realised to settle the claim, a taxable realisation event can arise in Austria. The fact that the investor did not trigger the sale voluntarily generally offers no protection from taxation. Austrian crypto rules capture sales for fiat money in particular, as well as swaps for other assets or services.

A Liquidation Can Trigger a Bitcoin Gain

An example:

• Bitcoin acquisition cost: 15,000 euros
• the Bitcoin are pledged for a loan
• the market falls
• the lender liquidates the BTC at a value of 35,000 euros

If the liquidation is treated as a disposal for tax purposes, acquisition costs of 15,000 euros are set against a realisation value of 35,000 euros.

The possible taxable gain is:

35,000 - 15,000 = 20,000 euros

Taxable new crypto assets are generally subject to the special tax rate of 27.5 percent.

Bitcoin Tax Can Arise Even Without a Payout

The awkward part is that in a liquidation the investor often receives no money in their bank account at all. The lender sells the Bitcoin and uses the proceeds directly to repay the outstanding loan debt. For tax purposes a realisation can still have occurred. What matters is not whether euros are paid out afterwards, but whether the Bitcoin were given up in economic terms in exchange for another value.

That can create an uncomfortable situation. The investor loses their Bitcoin and has to account for a taxable capital gain at the same time.

An Example With Residual Loan Debt

Assume:

• original Bitcoin purchase price: 10,000 euros
• loan: 25,000 euros
• Bitcoin value at liquidation: 40,000 euros

If Bitcoin worth 40,000 euros are realised to service the loan, a capital gain of 30,000 euros may in principle have arisen. Exactly which consideration has to be recognised for tax purposes depends on the specific contract and liquidation structure.

The Loan Terms Decide the Tax Treatment

Not every Bitcoin loan model works the same way.

The following points are particularly relevant for the tax assessment:

• Who remains the beneficial owner during the term of the loan?
• When may the lender realise the collateral?
• Are the BTC actually sold?
• Are they transferred to the lender?
• Is only part of the holding liquidated, or all of it?
• How is the liquidation value determined?
• Which amount is offset against the loan debt?

A blanket answer based on the word "liquidation" alone is therefore not enough.

A Bitcoin Capital Loss Can Arise as Well

Not every liquidation leads to a gain.

Example:

• acquisition cost: 40,000 euros
• liquidation value: 30,000 euros

In that case a realised tax loss of 10,000 euros can arise.

Provided the general conditions are met, it can be offset against certain other investment income of the same calendar year.

Documentation Matters Especially After a Liquidation

Once a liquidation has happened, investors should secure:

• the loan agreement,
• the collateral agreement,
• the liquidation statement,
• the time of realisation,
• the quantity of BTC liquidated,
• the Bitcoin price used,
• the amount of loan debt repaid,
• the original acquisition cost,
• wallet and blockchain data.

Without these details, working out the gain later can become difficult.

Conclusion

In Austria a Bitcoin liquidation can have the tax effect of a disposal. If the pledged collateral is sold or used in economic terms to repay the loan, a taxable Bitcoin gain can arise, even where the investor never wanted to sell the coins. Whether a realisation has occurred, and at what amount, depends on the specific contractual arrangement and on how the liquidation was carried out.

If you sent a transaction on the Cronos chain on August 30, 2026 between 12:38 and 14:33 UTC, it no longer exists today. Your balance stands at the value it held before that window. For most holders this is not expropriation but a complete reversal: whatever went out in that period was never debited either. There are cases, though, in which it does turn into real damage. This article shows you exactly which time window is affected, how to check your own transaction in a few minutes, and where the all-clear stops.

What happened on the Cronos chain on August 30

On September 8, 2026 the team behind Cronos published its post-mortem on the attack against the lending protocol Tectonic. A post-mortem is a project's after-the-fact investigation report into an incident. Only there do the hard numbers appear that had been missing until then.

The sequence, as the trade publication Cointelegraph relays it from the report: the attacker drove the price of the TONIC token up almost three hundred fold on thinly traded venues. A lending protocol lends out funds against posted collateral and values that collateral continuously through a price feed. That valuation is exactly where the attack landed. Against the artificially inflated collateral, the attacker borrowed $120.4 million across nine lending markets, spread over eleven transfers. The initial stake was around $5 million.

The incident was detected at 12:49 UTC, according to the report. At 14:32:47 UTC the network came to a standstill. The developers describe it as “a hard decision, taken together with the validators, weighing the finality users expect from a chain against the funds at risk”. A validator is an operator that proposes and confirms blocks; on a chain with a few dozen such operators, a coordinated agreement is technically feasible.

We described the network halt itself on August 31 in Cronos halts the chain after the Tectonic exploit. That article ended at the standstill, because the post-mortem was still outstanding at the time. This one supplies the resolution.

Which time window was erased

A block is a package of transactions that a blockchain records in fixed order. A rollback is the coordinated reset of a chain to an earlier block: everything confirmed after that point is discarded, and the chain is rebuilt onward from there.

By its own account, Cronos discarded 10,961 blocks. That amounts to one hour and 54 minutes of chain history. What matters for you is the sentence that appears in the reporting on the post-mortem: every transaction in that window was reversed, regardless of whether it had anything to do with the attack. Open positions in running applications were repriced when the chain restarted.

In terms you can orient yourself by: the reset point sits at the block carrying the timestamp August 30, 12:38:55 UTC. The standstill began at 14:32:47 UTC. Everything in between is discarded. Block production only resumed at 23:49:01 UTC the same day, a good eleven hours after the reset point.

Is your balance gone after the rollback?

In the basic case the answer is no. Your balance was reset to its state as of August 30, 12:38:55 UTC. A transfer you sent at 13:10 UTC has vanished, and with it the debit. A swap you executed at 14:00 UTC never took place, so you hold the original token again. Funds that sat at your address before 12:38:55 UTC are still sitting there unchanged.

The all-clear has edges, though, and those are the real reason for this article:

• You received a payment in that window and delivered on the strength of it. The payment no longer exists; your delivery does.
• You bridged value to another chain in that window and the counterpart arrived there. A rollback does not retrieve what has left the chain.
• You held an open, leveraged position. It was revalued at changed prices when the chain restarted.
• You deposited to an exchange in that window. A separate set of books applies there, more on which below.
• You documented a tax-relevant disposal that does not exist on today's chain. Your records then no longer match the chain.

The post-mortem names one important practical limitation itself: according to Cronos, the reversed transactions can only be traced through archived records, no longer through the public block explorers. Anyone who needs proof should therefore build it from their own documentation.

How to check your Cronos transaction in a few minutes

The check requires no expertise and no extra tooling. A block explorer is a website that makes the current contents of a blockchain searchable. Important for understanding it: it shows you the chain as it stands today, meaning the rebuilt version.

Step one: open your own address

Call up the official Cronos block explorer and enter your receiving address. You need neither connect your wallet nor enter a key. An address is a public identifier; whoever searches for it can move nothing.

Step two: narrow down the period

Look at the transaction list around August 30, 2026. The window that counts runs from 12:38:55 to 14:32:47 UTC. Convert it to your own time zone; in Central European Summer Time, two hours ahead, the window falls between roughly 14:39 and 16:33.

Step three: match up what is missing

If you find no entries in that window, your address was not affected. If you do remember a movement in that period and it is missing, then it was discarded. The funds it would have moved are back where they were before.

Step four: secure your own proof

Save the transaction hash, the unique identifier of your transfer, along with the timestamp and amount from your wallet history or from a confirmation email. These records are the only proof left to you if you have to explain to a trading counterparty, an exchange or the tax office why an event is missing from the chain.

What a rollback technically cannot retrieve

The limit of such a reset runs exactly along the chain boundary. A blockchain can rewrite only its own history. Once value has moved across a bridge to another chain, an independent and valid event sits there, out of reach of the resetting chain. A bridge is an application that transfers value from one blockchain to another by locking on one side and issuing on the other.

That is precisely what happened here. According to the post-mortem, $9.19 million had already left the chain before the halt, 7.6 percent of the affected sum. Those funds count as not recovered. Cointelegraph, citing the data service Bitquery, puts the share traced onto the Ethereum blockchain at $8.3 million. The reversal therefore undid $111.2 million and failed on the remainder.

For you as a holder, a sober rule follows: a reset protects you only as long as the event has not left the chain. How such an intervention works in principle and which cases it covers is something we described in general terms in what happens to your tokens when a chain is rolled back. The Cronos case is the first major application of that mechanism this year.

The gap is measurably present in the chain itself

You do not have to take the project's figures on trust. The event leaves an imprint that anyone can measure with a simple query. We did so on September 10, 2026 at around 00:40 UTC via the chain's public access point.

The chain ID was 25, the Cronos mainnet, and the height stood at 92,926,013 blocks. The block numbered 90,896,189 carries the timestamp August 30, 12:38:55 UTC. The block immediately following it, 90,896,190, carries the timestamp August 30, 23:49:01 UTC. Between two consecutive blocks there is thus a gap of 11 hours, 10 minutes and 6 seconds, where a few seconds would normally sit. That jump is the standstill.

The second measurement is more telling still. The block numbered 90,907,150, the height at which the chain was halted according to the report, carries the timestamp August 31, 05:59:27 UTC on today's chain. It was therefore created a good 15 hours after the attack. These block heights have demonstrably been produced anew. The branch that users saw as confirmed on August 30 has disappeared from today's chain.

Anyone wanting to check the arithmetic needs neither an account nor a subscription. Two block numbers and their timestamps are enough, and both can be retrieved from any public explorer.

If your exchange deposit fell inside the window

Trading venues keep their own books and credit a deposit once a set number of confirmations is reached. After that they post internally without consulting the chain again for every movement. If the chain is subsequently reset, a credit can be left standing without the transaction it rests on. Conversely, a withdrawal that reached you can be missing from the chain.

Stick to three sober points in that case. First: send nothing again before the position is clarified. Duplicate payments are the most common knock-on damage after an incident like this. Second: secure the transaction hash, timestamp and amount before you write to customer support. Third: compare today's position in your exchange account against your own last record from before August 30. If you buy regularly through a trading venue, our comparison of the best crypto exchanges sets out how many confirmations each provider requires for a credit.

One note on context, so that nobody draws the wrong lesson: the incident is an event of the chain, not the failure of an individual provider. An exchange that corrects a deposit after a rollback does so because the underlying booking is missing.

Finality against rescued funds: the conflict Cronos names itself

Finality is a chain's promise that a confirmed transaction will not be reversed. That promise is the reason a blockchain is fit to serve as a settlement layer at all. A rollback suspends the promise for a defined window.

What is notable is that the project names this conflict openly itself. In the passage quoted above, Cronos explicitly sets the finality users expect against the funds at risk and calls the decision a hard one. The trade-off is therefore on the record, rather than disappearing behind a success notice.

Whether a chain whose operators can roll back its history by agreement still credibly honours the promise of finality is a matter of judgement. The numbers alone cannot settle it, and this article does not settle it. What can be recorded is the verifiable fact: the intervention was possible, it was carried out, and it worked for around $111 million. Anyone deriving an expectation for future incidents from that is making their own assessment, not stating a finding.

What the case means for your own custody

The obvious lesson would be that self-custody was of no help here. That is true, and it also shows what self-custody actually protects against. Whoever holds their own keys is protected against the insolvency of a custodian and against third-party access to their account. No key protects against a rule change on the chain the value sits on, because the key proves only entitlement, not the state of the chain.

Two things follow in practice. For one, it is worth not leaving larger holdings permanently on a single chain with a manageable circle of operators. For another, your own bookkeeping counts for more than many assume: transaction hashes, timestamps and wallet statements are the only proof that survives an intervention like this. If you keep your keys separate from your everyday device, our hardware wallet comparison sets out the differences between the devices.

And one more point that gets lost in the excitement: after a network halt the chain is unreliable for hours. Time-critical payments over a chain that has just been stopped are an avoidable risk in the first days afterwards.

Checking the Cronos rollback: what to take away

1. Check first whether you are affected at all. Open your address in the explorer and see whether any entries sit in the window from August 30, 12:38:55 to 14:32:47 UTC. If you deposited to a trading venue during that time, reconcile the position there against your own record; which providers require how many confirmations is set out in the exchange comparison.
2. Secure your records before you do anything else. Transaction hash, timestamp and amount from your wallet history are the only proof after a reset, because the discarded events no longer appear in the public explorers. Where your keys, and with them your history, sit most safely is shown by the hardware wallet comparison.
3. Spread larger holdings across more than one chain. The incident shows that the risk does not sit only with the custodian but in the chain itself. Which wallet cleanly runs several networks side by side, and where the day-to-day differences lie, is set out in the software wallet comparison.

(As of September 10, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

When your hardware wallet shows you nothing but a string of hexadecimal characters before you approve, you are signing blind. That is changing for part of your transactions: on September 7, 2026, Trezor switched on a feature called Clear Signing, which translates contract data into readable sentences on the device display. cryptoticker.io collected the analysis below on September 9, 2026, and it shows how far the coverage really reaches: of the twenty largest Ethereum applications by capital deposited, exactly two are on the plain-text list at launch.

For you that means two things. The most important step is a firmware update, and there is nothing else to configure. The second step concerns everything the new standard does not yet cover, and that is the larger part of your everyday life in decentralised finance.

Blind signing: what you approve when you confirm a hexadecimal string

Blind signing describes the approval of a transaction whose content the device does not display in plain language, showing only a block of data or a checksum. In that case the wallet knows that it is signing something, but it cannot tell you what.

Until now the sequence looked like this. On your computer sits a comprehensible sentence, say the swap of 2,000 dollar tokens for ether. Only the so-called calldata block travels to the device, meaning the encoded function together with its parameters. A character string appears on the small display. You confirm and trust that the sentence on the large screen matches what the device is signing at that moment. In its own blog post, Trezor explicitly describes this sequence as an inversion of the principle: the wallet is supposed to be the last authority, not the computer.

Why the wallet screen has to be the last authority

A hardware wallet protects your private key and signs offline. The third layer of protection, a check on a trustworthy display, falls away when the string is unreadable. If the computer is compromised or a provider's website has been manipulated, the browser still shows you the harmless sentence while the block of data does something else. Wallet drainers and swapped interfaces live off that gap. Trade publications such as Cryptobriefing and Cryptopolitan assign the theft at the Bybit exchange in February 2025, with damage of around 1.5 billion dollars, to the same class of attack.

The gap is not a theory out of security research. As recently as August 25, 2026, we reported on a signature flaw in Ledger's Ethereum app, where the display on the device and the content actually signed could come apart. Anyone looking only at the computer screen at the time would not have noticed the difference.

Trezor Clear Signing: what was switched on for September 7

In its own blog, Trezor calls Clear Signing the flagship security feature of 2026. Instead of a checksum, the device shows the actual action for supported contracts, the tokens involved, the amounts and the destination address in ordinary language. The trade press picked up the launch on September 8; Cryptobriefing reports that the Ethereum Foundation has confirmed the implementation and that Trezor worked with its competitor Ledger on it.

Three points from the announcement matter in practice. First, there is no switch: the feature takes effect automatically through Trezor Suite, WalletConnect and Trezor Connect as soon as the firmware is current. Second, it only covers contracts for which a matching description file exists. Third, for everything else the device falls back on the old sequence together with a warning.

The feature concerns Ethereum and the networks compatible with it, so the common layer 2 chains as well. Nothing changes for plain bitcoin transfers, because there the recipient address and the amount already appear in plain text on the display.

Which Trezor models show plain text and which one misses out

According to the manufacturer's blog, the Safe 7, Safe 5 and Safe 3 models and the older Model T support the feature, provided they run the standard firmware with Ethereum support. The Model One is left out. That is not an edge case, because the device has been on sale since 2014 and is likely to be sitting in a good many drawers.

If you use a Model One and work with contracts regularly, you now face a permanent limitation. Either you restrict the device to simple transfers and holdings you rarely move, or you plan a switch. Which criteria count there, and why a manufacturer's reputation alone is a poor basis for a purchase, is set out in our comparison of hardware wallets.

A note for context: even a manufacturer with a good security reputation has weak points elsewhere. In September 2026, Trezor customers had to check whether their address details were affected by a data breach at a shipping service provider. Plain text on the display does not solve that problem.

ERC-7730: the open standard behind the plain-text display

ERC-7730 is an open standard that gives wallets a uniform rule for translating complex contract data into readable information. Every supported contract comes with a description file, a so-called descriptor, which sets out which function produces which sentence. The specification is publicly available, and Trezor has made its own implementation open source, firmware and decoding logic included.

The decisive sentence for your everyday use is in the manufacturer's list of questions: coverage follows the register of these description files. No entry, no plain text. At launch Trezor names 1inch, Aave, Lido, Tether, LiFi and Hyperliquid along with further contracts. Cryptobriefing reports that the number of published description files grew by around 28 percent between the introduction in May 2026 and the end of July.

Our analysis: how much DeFi capital plain text reaches at launch

We wanted to know what those six names mean in practice, so we counted for ourselves. The basis is the public interface of DefiLlama, called on September 9, 2026 at around 22:00 UTC with code 200. We evaluated the capital deposited on Ethereum per application, adjusted for centralised exchanges, for chains themselves and for the official bridges of the networks, because nobody approves a contract there that a device would have to display.

The result: the twenty largest applications on that adjusted list carry 115.7 billion dollars between them. Two of them are on the launch list of the plain-text register, namely Lido with 23.90 billion and Aave in its third version with 14.58 billion. That comes to 38.5 billion dollars, or 33.3 percent of the capital in this selection.

A third sounds like little and is still the strongest part of the market: the two largest pools of all are covered. Anyone lending or staking ether will therefore see readable information on the device for the two most common routes.

Why Uniswap and Curve are not on the launch list

The other side of the count is the more interesting one. Among the applications with no mention at launch sit the very trading venues that many investors use daily. For Uniswap the interface reports 0.90 billion dollars in version three, 0.84 billion in version two and 0.69 billion in version four; Curve comes to 1.21 billion. None of those contracts belongs to the six names on the launch list.

Measured by capital deposited, these addresses sit far behind the lending and staking pools. Measured by the number of approvals it is the other way round: a swap regularly consists of two signatures, an approval for the token and the swap itself. Expensive mistakes happen in exactly that accumulation, and that is exactly where the old sequence remains in place for now.

That puts the announcement in perspective without devaluing it. The standard is open, the register is growing, and other manufacturers are building on the same foundation. Until then the rule that applied before September 7 still applies to you: what you do not read, you do not approve.

How to check in five minutes what your device really shows

The test costs no fee and needs no transaction. Connect your device to the manufacturer's management software and look whether newer firmware is offered. Install it while your recovery phrase is within reach, and note the version number before and after the update.

After that, call up an application you use anyway and start an approval that you cancel at the end. What counts is the moment the device asks for your confirmation. If the action, the token, the amount and the destination address appear there in words, plain text is working. If you see a character string or a note about an unknown block of data, the contract is not in the register.

In the same run, check the destination address character by character, at least the first and the last six digits. The reason lies in a widespread trick: attackers send you tiny amounts from an address that looks deceptively similar to the recipient address you are used to, hoping you will later copy it from your history. How to spot such deceptions is set out in our article on phishing around crypto withdrawals.

What plain text explicitly does not prevent

A readable display answers the question of what you are signing. Whether the contract behind it is reputable is a question nobody answers on the display. An unlimited approval for a fraudulent contract remains an unlimited approval, even when the device describes it cleanly. Nor does the standard help against a lost recovery phrase, against a poorly secured software wallet on an infected computer, or against pressure from outside.

What to do when the blind signing warning appears

The warning does not report an error. There is simply no description available for this contract. Cancel at that point if you do not know the counterparty. With an application you trust, at least check the contract address against the provider's official documentation instead of taking it from a search engine or a message.

Two habits lower the risk regardless of the device. Keep amounts separate: one account for daily dealings with contracts, a second for the holdings that never belong there. And limit approvals to the amount you currently need instead of confirming the preset unlimited permission. Both take effect immediately and cost you only a few extra clicks.

Limits of this analysis: what our figures do not show

Our measurement describes capital deposited, not usage. How many approvals go to which contracts each day does not follow from it, and that figure would say even more about the question of coverage. The survey also rests on a single data source, which we did not mirror against a second one in the same minute.

We did not count the register of description files. We held the launch partners named by the manufacturer against the capital ranking. Alongside the six names, Trezor explicitly mentions further contracts without listing them; actual coverage may therefore be higher than our allocation of two hits in the first twenty places. Finally, we look only at Ethereum. On the layer 2 chains, for which the feature also applies, the ranking looks different.

In time, the analysis is a snapshot of September 9, 2026. If the register keeps growing at the pace of the months from May to July, the picture shifts in favour of plain text, and the section above ages quickly. The recommendation is unaffected by that.

Checking blind signing: what to take away

1. Update the firmware and establish where your model stands. Safe 7, Safe 5, Safe 3 and Model T get the plain-text display, the Model One does not. If your device is left out and you approve contracts regularly, look at the criteria in our hardware wallet comparison before you buy a new one.
2. Start an approval as a test and cancel it again. That shows you, on your own holdings, which of the applications you use appear in plain text. For everything else the old rule stands: check the contract address first, then confirm. If you are travelling without a device, the security-relevant differences are in our comparison of software wallets.
3. Separate holdings and limit approvals. Keep your long-term holdings away from the account you use to sign contracts daily, and set approvals to the amount needed rather than to unlimited. Which devices support that, and with how much handling effort, is likewise in the hardware wallet comparison.

The announcement of September 7 is a genuine step forward for the two largest pools of capital in the Ethereum world. For the rest of your everyday use, responsibility stays where it has always been. The full announcement is in the manufacturer's blog post, and the specification of the standard in the official ERC-7730 version.

(As of September 9, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)

The hardware wallet maker said a fake security alert claimed a hardware flaw could expose users’ recovery phrases.

The Fields medalist points to a real race between OpenAI and Anthropic as proof: AI can now flatten a hard problem the moment someone starts working on it.

Crypto advocates and community bankers are targeting lawmakers in their home states as the Senate prepares for a September 15 procedural vote.

The company's first fall keynote under new leadership paired a Gemini-powered Siri overhaul with Apple's first 2-nanometer chip, plus a $1,999 foldable iPhone that won't ship until October.

Blockchain sleuths at Elliptic traced the money, Treasury sanctioned the marketplace, and Xinbi—which ran $24 billion through a Telegram scam bazaar—called the freeze unfair.

Binance announces delisting of once major stablecoin Pax Dollar.

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs have posted a second consecutive day of outflows.

Trezor users have been hit by an unusually sophisticated phishing campaign after attackers breached a third-party email provider.

Market's main goal is extend recent recoveries, but key resistance levels and increasingly stretched momentum could determine what comes next.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is urging senators to advance the CLARITY Act.

Key Takeaways

• META shares surged 7% Wednesday, reaching approximately $653 following the introduction of its Muse autonomous AI assistant
• Brian Nowak from Morgan Stanley retained his Buy recommendation with a $775 price objective, highlighting Meta’s opportunity in the $30 trillion consumer AI agent sector
• John Blackledge at TD Cowen affirmed his Buy stance with a $750 target price
• Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest purchased approximately $27.9M in META shares while divesting roughly $27.8M worth of Alphabet (GOOGL) holdings
• Consensus among Wall Street analysts shows Strong Buy rating for META, with mean price target of $753.08 suggesting approximately 15% potential upside

Shares of Meta Platforms experienced a significant 7% increase Wednesday afternoon, touching $653 per share and marking the stock’s strongest performance in eight weeks. The rally came on the heels of Tuesday’s announcement of Muse, the company’s new autonomous AI personal assistant.

Meta Platforms, Inc., META

The Muse platform emerged from Meta Superintelligence Labs and operates on the Muse Spark 1.3 foundation model. This innovative assistant can perform practical tasks such as launching applications, completing forms, arranging travel plans, and managing email communications.

Brian Nowak, analyst at Morgan Stanley, characterized the debut as a significant milestone in what he estimates to be a $30 trillion consumer AI agent marketplace. His Buy recommendation remains unchanged, with his $775 price objective suggesting roughly 19% appreciation potential from present trading levels.

Among over 12,000 Wall Street analysts monitored by TipRanks, Nowak holds the #1,685 position, landing him within the top 14%. His track record includes a 57% accuracy rate and an average return of 5.60% per recommendation.

Nowak emphasized that Meta’s ecosystem of applications—encompassing Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—provides the company with a competitive advantage in rolling out AI agent solutions. The platform’s reach of more than 3 billion daily active people represents a distribution advantage that few competitors can replicate.

Wall Street’s Perspective

John Blackledge from TD Cowen similarly reaffirmed his Buy position on META stock, keeping his $750 price objective intact. This target indicates potential upside of approximately 15%.

In his research commentary, Blackledge took a measured approach: while he doesn’t anticipate immediate revenue impact from Muse, he views the product as potentially developing into a substantial revenue contributor in the longer term.

The broader analyst community demonstrates strong confidence in the stock’s prospects. With 37 Buy recommendations and six Hold ratings published in the last three months, META holds a Strong Buy consensus rating. The collective price target among analysts stands at $753.08.

ARK Invest Makes Strategic Shift

The stock’s upward movement attracted attention from ARK Invest. The investment firm led by Cathie Wood acquired 43,091 META shares totaling approximately $27.9M through both the ARK Innovation ETF and ARK Next Generation Internet ETF during Wednesday’s trading session.

Simultaneously, ARK offloaded 84,392 shares of Alphabet (GOOGL) worth about $27.8M via the identical funds. The transaction represented a deliberate reallocation from one technology giant to another.

Beyond the Muse announcement, additional momentum came from Meta‘s acquisition of Swedish artificial intelligence firm Stilla.ai, a strategic transaction anticipated to bolster its advancement in AI-driven business automation solutions.

The consensus analyst price objective of $753.08 signals potential gains of approximately 15% above Wednesday’s closing price levels.

The post Meta Platforms (META) Stock Surges 7% Following Muse AI Agent Debut appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Precious metal prices advanced 0.4% to approximately $4,418 per ounce Thursday, benefiting from dollar depreciation
• Climbing yields on 10-year government bonds limited upward movement, diminishing gold’s relative attractiveness
• Brent crude surpassed $100 per barrel for the first time in two months, intensifying inflation worries
• Derivative markets indicate approximately 65% probability of Federal Reserve tightening at mid-September policy gathering
• Worldwide gold exchange-traded funds registered $18 billion inflows during August, marking second-highest monthly figure ever recorded

Gold continues trading in proximity to the $4,400 per ounce threshold as market participants await crucial U.S. inflation reports that may shape Federal Reserve monetary policy decisions for the upcoming meeting.

Spot prices for the yellow metal climbed 0.4% to reach $4,418.87 during Thursday’s session. December gold futures contracts edged up 0.03% to settle at $4,461.82. The advance followed a session that broke three consecutive days of declining prices.

Dollar depreciation provided the primary tailwind. The U.S. Dollar Index descended to 98.74, enhancing gold’s affordability for international purchasers transacting in alternative currencies.

Government Debt Yields and Energy Costs Create Headwinds

Escalating fixed-income returns are counterbalancing gold’s momentum. Ten-year U.S. Treasury yields advanced following a Treasury Department initiative to acquire as much as $6 billion in extended-maturity securities, which produced minimal market reaction.

Given that gold generates no yield, elevated bond returns diminish its comparative appeal versus interest-bearing instruments. This dynamic has constrained the precious metal’s price ceiling throughout recent trading weeks.

Energy market developments compounded the situation. Brent crude benchmark pricing hit the $100 threshold for the first occasion since July. This development sparked renewed apprehension regarding inflationary pressures, potentially encouraging Federal Reserve policymakers toward additional monetary tightening.

Interest rate swap markets presently reflect roughly 65% odds favoring a rate increase during the Federal Reserve’s September 14-15 policy deliberations. Market participants are closely monitoring Thursday’s producer price data and Friday’s consumer price figures for policy guidance.

According to Tony Sycamore, senior market analyst at IG, the precious metal continues trading substantially beneath its 200-day moving average positioned around $4,537. A decisive break above this technical threshold would be necessary to confirm that the correction from the $4,697 peak has concluded.

Geopolitical Concerns Remain Market Factor

The Middle Eastern conflict, currently entering its seventh month, maintains influence over market sentiment. Iranian officials indicated readiness for escalated confrontation should American strikes on its territory and critical infrastructure persist.

Sustained regional hostilities elevate the probability of energy distribution interruptions from the area. This situation maintains gold’s appeal among certain investors seeking protection against long-term uncertainty, despite near-term technical challenges.

Following a rebound from support levels near $4,000 established in July, the precious metal has predominantly consolidated within a range centered on $4,400.

Exchange-Traded Fund Inflows Reach Exceptional Levels

Investment vehicle demand has demonstrated remarkable strength. Globally, gold-backed exchange-traded funds accumulated $18 billion during August, representing their second-highest monthly intake ever, per World Gold Council data.

Physical holdings expanded by 121 tonnes to establish a new record of 4,189 tonnes. Total assets under management increased 16% to reach $615 billion.

North American-domiciled funds experienced their third-largest monthly influx on record. European-listed products achieved their strongest monthly inflow in history.

Silver prices advanced 0.5% to $67.62. Platinum declined 0.6% to $1,889.34.

The post Gold Prices Hover Around $4,400 Ahead of Critical U.S. Inflation Reports appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Apple introduced the iPhone 18 Pro at $1,199 and Pro Max at $1,299, marking a $100 increase over the previous iPhone 17 generation
• The company’s first foldable device, the iPhone Duo, was revealed with a $1,999 price tag, sporting a 7.6-inch internal screen and 5.4-inch external display
• The iPhone 18 Pro lineup features the A20 Pro processor, extended battery life up to 24 hours, and an advanced variable mechanical aperture camera system
• Enhanced AI capabilities debut with Siri AI upgrades, expanded Apple Intelligence functionality, and “Apple Reference Images” for identifying AI-created content
• John Ternus, the company’s new CEO, led his inaugural product launch after succeeding Tim Cook in the previous week

Apple’s highly anticipated September 9 fall presentation showcased an impressive array of products, with the spotlight firmly on the iPhone Duo—the tech giant’s inaugural foldable smartphone, carrying a $1,999 price point.

John Ternus, the company’s newly appointed CEO, made his debut appearance at a major launch event following his official succession of Tim Cook just days earlier. Previously serving as Apple’s Senior Vice President of Hardware Engineering, Ternus highlighted the iPhone Duo as the “slimmest” iPhone design to date, remarkably incorporating both a spacious 7.6-inch internal screen and a compact 5.4-inch external display.

The Duo enables seamless functionality as users fold or rotate the device, offering effortless app switching capabilities. Integration with Apple Pencil is scheduled for release later in the year. Pre-order availability begins October 16, with general retail launch set for October 23.

Apple Inc., AAPL

AAPL shares declined 0.28% during trading.

Premium iPhone 18 Pro Models See Price Elevation

The base iPhone 18 Pro carries a $1,199 price tag, while the Pro Max model begins at $1,299. This represents a $100 escalation compared to the iPhone 17 Pro variants, which launched at $1,099 and $1,199 respectively.

Apple has implemented numerous price adjustments across its MacBook lineup throughout the current year. Former CEO Tim Cook previously indicated to the Wall Street Journal that additional price increases were “inevitable” given the escalating costs of memory chips. The AI-fueled demand for memory and storage has consistently impacted pricing across Apple’s entire product ecosystem.

The latest Pro models run on the advanced A20 Pro chip, delivering enhanced CPU and GPU performance alongside an upgraded neural engine for improved AI processing.

Power efficiency receives significant improvements as well. The iPhone 18 Pro provides 24 hours of battery operation, with the Pro Max extending to an impressive 30 hours.

Photography capabilities advance through a new variable mechanical aperture system that captures approximately 50% additional light in low-illumination conditions.

The Dynamic Island interface on Pro variants now accommodates up to three simultaneous live activities for enhanced multitasking.

Artificial Intelligence Features Dominate the Presentation

Apple Intelligence functionality is deeply integrated throughout the new iPhone generation. The enhanced Siri AI can extract information from messages and emails, utilize the camera for real-world object recognition, compose emails through voice commands, and alternate between various expressive vocal tones.

Apple Intelligence extends to Safari browser functionality, enabling webpage monitoring with automatic change notifications.

Siri AI becomes available in English during the current month, with additional language support for French, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, and Spanish arriving in October. The complete rollout will encompass 16 different languages.

A novel “Apple Reference Images” tool has been developed to authenticate whether photographs originated from actual cameras or AI generation systems.

Apple additionally showcased “Siri Recap” functionality for the latest Apple Watch, which provides conversation summaries, alongside “Live Rewind,” allowing users to replay the most recent 15 seconds of any dialogue. The company emphasized that no audio files are generated or retained.

The iPhone division contributed $209.5 billion to Apple’s overall $416.1 billion revenue total in 2025.

The post Apple (AAPL) Stock Dips as Company Reveals Foldable iPhone Duo and Premium iPhone 18 Pro Lineup appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Points

• Federal intelligence agencies claim Chinese AI developers have been “aggressively” distilling technology from leading American models such as GPT, Claude, Gemini, and Grok
• The advisory specifically identifies DeepSeek, Alibaba, Moonshot AI, and Z.ai among others, allegedly operating with Beijing’s knowledge
• Beijing’s Commerce Ministry dismissed the allegations as baseless and threatened “resolute countermeasures” should Washington target Chinese AI companies
• Chinese officials argue that model distillation represents standard industry practice globally, hinting US firms may also extract from Chinese systems
• This confrontation emerges just before anticipated Trump-Xi discussions this month where AI governance will feature prominently

Three US intelligence organizations—the FBI, National Security Agency, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency—released a coordinated statement Tuesday alleging that Chinese AI companies have systematically extracted technological capabilities from premier American AI platforms on an “industrial scale.” The systems reportedly affected include Anthropic’s Claude, OpenAI’s GPT series, Google’s Gemini, and xAI’s Grok, with suspicious activity documented since at least the final quarter of 2024.

The statement explicitly identified several companies: DeepSeek, Alibaba, Moonshot AI, MiniMax, StepFun, and Z.ai. According to US intelligence officials, these operations were conducted “likely with Chinese government awareness” and employed sophisticated routing mechanisms through multiple channels designed to circumvent service agreements.

Intelligence officials further alleged that Chinese entities engaged in mass procurement of premium subscription accounts, which were then distributed among development teams as a cost-reduction strategy during these distillation operations.

Beijing Issues Strong Denial

China’s Commerce Ministry categorically denied the accusations on Wednesday, characterizing them as “groundless.” Officials emphasized that distillation represents a conventional methodology employed by AI developers internationally, including within the United States. The ministry framed the allegations as evidence of American “anxiety and double standards.”

“If the US suppresses Chinese AI companies under the pretext of targeting distillation, China will take resolute countermeasures,” the ministry said in a statement.

China’s Foreign Affairs Ministry echoed this sentiment, urging Washington to cease making “unfounded accusations.” Spokesperson Mao Ning emphasized that Chinese advances in artificial intelligence stem from independent technological innovation and advocated for international collaboration in the sector.

Chinese officials indicated openness to “constructive and professional discussions” with their American counterparts on AI matters, contingent on principles of equality and mutual advantage. However, they underscored that any punitive US measures against Chinese enterprises would trigger appropriate responses.

Tensions Rise Before Planned Summit

This diplomatic friction unfolds mere weeks ahead of a scheduled meeting between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the White House for their second summit of the year. Artificial intelligence governance is anticipated to dominate the agenda.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent entered the debate Tuesday during remarks at Southern Methodist University, asserting that China “can never get ahead” of America in the AI race.

“The Chinese distill our models and they can never get ahead of us,” Bessent said.

This controversy underscores the escalating technological rivalry between Washington and Beijing. Chinese AI systems such as Moonshot’s Kimi K3 have established a foothold in American markets, perceived by some users as more cost-effective and efficient alternatives to domestic offerings.

Both OpenAI and Anthropic have independently raised similar concerns about Chinese developers in the past. Tuesday’s coordinated advisory, however, provided unprecedented specificity regarding which American systems were allegedly targeted and the methods employed.

The Chinese companies named in the advisory did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The post US-China AI Theft Allegations: Beijing Denies Model Distillation Claims appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Apple introduced the iPhone Duo, its first foldable device, during a September 9 presentation with new CEO John Ternus
• The device boasts a 7.6-inch foldable screen with a $1,999 price tag
• Samsung wasted no time trolling Apple on X, posting “let us know when you’re done reheating our leftovers”
• Duolingo hijacked the conversation, quipping the device was “named after me” while highlighting their free app versus the $1,999 phone
• The online roast fest dominated headlines, eclipsing coverage of the actual device

When [[LINK_START_0]]Apple[[LINK_END_0]] unveiled its inaugural foldable phone on September 9, the company probably didn’t anticipate becoming the butt of jokes across social media.

During Apple’s yearly hardware showcase in Silicon Valley, new CEO John Ternus introduced the iPhone Duo. The flagship foldable packs a 7.6-inch screen, titanium frame, and carries a hefty $1,999 price point.

However, it was the product name that sparked the biggest reaction—particularly from two prominent companies eager to pile on.

Samsung Wastes No Time Throwing Shade

Samsung Mobile US didn’t wait long before launching a barrage of sarcastic posts on X. The Korean electronics giant, which released its Galaxy Fold in 2019, seized the opportunity to highlight Apple’s tardy arrival to the foldable arena.

“Let us know when you’re done reheating our leftovers,” Samsung’s account fired off.

The company didn’t stop there. Additional posts ridiculed the lack of innovation: “It’s feeling very familiar. Is this a Sims sequel?” Another quip read: “Not the bed side clock. It’s giving groundhog day.”

This aggressive social media strategy isn’t new territory for Samsung. The brand regularly takes shots at Apple when the Cupertino company enters markets where Samsung already has established presence.

Duolingo Delivers the Knockout Blow

Things escalated when Samsung dragged Duolingo into the fray. Posting with the hashtag “#Solidarity,” Samsung mockingly apologized to the language education platform, insinuating Apple had lifted the “Duo” name from Duolingo’s beloved green owl mascot.

Duolingo’s response was pure gold: “they named a phone after me and made it bend over.”

The language app then dropped a brutal comparison: “iPhone Duo: $1999. Duo on your iPhone: free.”

When addressing Samsung directly, Duolingo clapped back: “when an ugly stranger calls you twin, No Brand.”

The back-and-forth generated massive engagement online, completely diverting attention from Apple’s hardware announcement.

Market reactions were mixed: Duolingo’s stock dropped 4.88% that day, Apple shares declined 0.28%, and Samsung’s Korea-traded stock fell 0.19%.

As for the actual iPhone Duo, it features split-screen multitasking capabilities and employs a book-fold mechanism. Apple now enters a crowded foldable segment dominated by Samsung, Huawei, and various Android manufacturers.

Post-launch discussions centered overwhelmingly on the corporate trolling rather than technical specifications. In today’s digital landscape, major tech announcements have become battlegrounds where brands compete for viral moments through witty comebacks and rapid-fire social engagement.

Apple has remained silent regarding the naming controversy with Duolingo.

The post Samsung and Duolingo Roast Apple’s New iPhone Duo in Epic Social Media Battle appeared first on Blockonomi.

Citing data from Santiment Intelligence, popular analyst Ali Martinez showed a chart indicating that Bitcoin whale holdings have remained almost completely unchanged at roughly 5.23 million units over the past week.

Perhaps the most evident reason for this is what comes in the next ten days or so, as BTC, alongside all financial markets, braces for a major impact.

10 Days of Chaos

The analyst noted that the lack of accumulation or distribution from whales suggests these large market participants are staying on the sidelines waiting for two particularly important events coming in the next week or so – the US inflation report and the subsequent Federal Reserve meeting.

The inflation data is split: the first batch, the August Producer Price Index (PPI), arrives today, while the considerably more important Consumer Price Index (CPI) comes out a day later. Inflation has already become a major talking point after the stronger-than-expected US employment report substantially increased expectations for a new Fed rate hike.

Current odds show a 60% probability of a September rate uptick, even though a Reuters poll found that most economists still expect the central bank to remain on hold. Consequently, Friday’s CPI Reading could play a major role in breaking that disagreement.

Although these two macro events will indeed have some impact on the digital asset market, there are others. The crypto-specific catalyst arrives on September 15, when the Senate is scheduled to hold its procedural vote on advancing the CLARITY Act. Previous progress or delays have typically influenced the market.

A day later comes the aforementioned Federal Reserve decision about its rates, accompanied by Kevin Warsh’s press conference and updated economic projections. Next week will conclude with the Bank of Japan’s announcements about its own rates, with another hike potentially adding pressure to global bond and currency markets.

BTC Below $80K

Whales’ hesitation mirrors BTC’s broader price action as the asset has remained sideways between $77,500 and $80,000 for roughly a week. Each breakout attempt has been halted in its tracks at the upper boundary, while the lower one has provided the necessary support during the subsequent pullbacks.

However, this market uncertainty will likely change in the next just over a week. With PPI, CPI, CLARITY Act voting, the Fed’s move, and the BOJ’s decision arriving almost back-to-back, bitcoin is expected to break out of its consolidation phase, which has continued for weeks after the mid-August pullback.

The post Bitcoin Whales Remain on the Sidelines Ahead of Chaotic 10 Days: What’s Coming? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The Core Team outlined the introduction of Pi Desktop 0.6.3, carrying several important updates to SoloHost in another attempt to provide a further glimpse into the project’s plans to expand Pi Nodes far beyond blockchain validation.

In addition, the team announced a naming change as future releases will be referred to as Pi Desktop versions rather than Pi Node versions after the implementation of 0.6.3.

SoloHost Pushed Forward

SoloHost is the framework allowing Pioneers to run self-hosted applications directly from their computers. Community apps on it will now be ranked based on the number of people currently running them. According to the team, this has the potential to make the ecosystem’s most-used applications easier to find.

Developers are also getting a new “My Apps” section to manage their published products, alongside improved Docker Compose support for testing and troubleshooting.

Another introduction comes from a readiness probe designed to determine whether SoloHost apps are properly responding before they are available to users, reducing intermittent connectivity-related errors.

But perhaps the most anticipated and interesting addition from the latest batch is a new SoloHost repository specifically structured to be easily understood by AI agents. The team said this should allow AI tools to more effectively assist developers in creating such apps.

The new update also fixed an issue that could cause SoloHost login tokens to expire after Pi Desktop had been running for several days.

More Than Blockchain Infrastructure

As recently reported, Pi Network added self-hosted applications including OpenClaw and the Atlassian MCP Server, showing how Pi Desktop can be used for local AI agents and AI-integrated professional workflows. Moreover, the Core Team previously completed its first distributed-computing test through SoloHost, in which five volunteer Node operators successfully received, processed, and returned computing jobs using their own devices.

Pi has noted in the past that its longer-term goal is to enable third-party applications to tap into spare computing capacity from its network of more than 420,000 claimed Node operators, with participating Pioneers potentially receiving portions of the native token in exchange.

Although the latest update doesn’t achieve all of that, it provides another piece of infrastructure for the broader effort to transform the Pi Nodes from blockchain validators into a platform for self-hosted apps, AI, and, eventually, distributed computing.

The post Another Major Pi Network (PI) Update Is Here – What Changes for Pioneers? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Hardware wallet maker Trezor said its third-party provider was breached and warned users that an email titled “Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Vulnerability” was not sent by the company but was instead a phishing attempt.

The company urged users not to click any links.

Trezor Phishing Scam

In an update on X, Trezor said it had taken down the domain and was investigating how hackers accessed its legitimate domain. The phishing message in question attempted to convince users that a serious security flaw has been found in STM32 microcontrollers used in its devices. According to the fabricated warning, STM32 microcontrollers could generate recovery phrases without enough randomness, potentially putting users’ funds at risk. The email further claims that as many as 25% of devices may be affected.

The issue may not be limited to Trezor users, according to Casa CEO and co-founder Nick Neuman. He noted that reports of similar messages have surfaced among people using the BitBox device as well.

This isn’t the first time a third-party partner connected to Trezor has suffered a security breach. In August, the platform disclosed a similar security incident involving its logistics partner, ShipMonk, which compromised personal details tied to a large number of customers.

The exposed information included contact and delivery data. An earlier disclosure put the number of affected individuals at 13,689. However, Trezor later confirmed that roughly 67,000 additional US customers were impacted, which pushed the total to 80,689 people whose information was exposed.

Hardware Concerns

A separate security test also raised concerns about the TROPIC01 chip found in Trezor’s Safe 7 wallet. In June, Ledger’s Donjon researchers found that, with specialized equipment and physical access to a device, an attacker could interfere with the chip while it checks firmware.

The researchers used a carefully focused 1064 nm laser to trigger faults during the boot and update process. This could allow modified firmware to run. Trezor, however, said the finding does not put users’ funds at risk.

Blockchain investigator ZachXBT has been pretty blunt about hardware wallets in the past. He had earlier said that all hardware wallets are “complete garbage” and that he wouldn’t use them for important transactions or to store funds, and suggested keeping a separate iPhone just for wallet use instead.

The post Fake Trezor Warning Claims 25% of Devices Are Vulnerable in Latest Phishing Campaign appeared first on CryptoPotato.

It was less than a month ago when the US Treasury Department announced it would double the maximum size of liquidity-support buybacks for longer-dated government debt.

Bitcoin’s price reacted at the time with an immediate leg up. The Treasury now said it would triple it to $6 billion, but BTC remained flat and even dipped. So, what changed?

Same Move, Different Reaction

On August 19, the Treasury Department’s Scott Bessent unexpectedly announced that the institution would at least double liquidity-support buybacks for longer-dated government debt from $2 billion to $4 billion per operation. Financial markets reacted immediately, with BTC and gold leading the surge. Meanwhile, long-term Treasury yields dropped.

By buying older long-term Treasuries, the government was essentially attempting to improve liquidity in a bond market suffering from rapidly rising yields. Declining yields, on the other hand, typically reduce the appeal of bonds and ease financial conditions, which is a friendlier environment for bitcoin and other risk assets.

The Treasury did it again yesterday, increasing the upcoming buyback to $6 billion. However, the 10-year Treasury yield jumped to 4.85%, its highest level in almost three years. The 20-year and 30-year yields also increased to about 5.30%. In contrast, the primary cryptocurrency not only didn’t rally as it did the last time, but actually dipped below $78,000 and has barely been able to reclaim that level since.

Why No Surge?

Perhaps the most notable difference between the announcement on September 9 and August 19 was the lack of actual surprise. Treasury’s move from last month represented an unexpected policy shift, and markets repriced the possibility that it was becoming more willing to intervene as long-term borrowing costs surged. In contrast, the increase to $6 billion in buybacks doesn’t appear to be enough as Wall Street estimates had stretched toward up to $10 billion following Bessent’s comments.

In addition, the macro environment continues to deteriorate. Oil prices surged $100 as the US-Iran war continues, and inflation fears are through the roof. Last week’s strong employment data and Kevin Warsh’s hawkish stance the previous Friday have simultaneously raised expectations that the Federal Reserve could hike interest rates on September 16.

This combination is pushing yields faster than Treasury buybacks are able to push them down. The Kobeissi Letter described it as the bond market “fighting” the Treasury, warning that the 10-year yield could exceed 5% if current conditions persist. This is the key distinction for BTC, as it wasn’t exactly the Treasury buyback that sent it flying in August. Instead, it was what the announcement initially did to yields, liquidity expectations, and broader risk appetite.

The market message is quite different this time, even though the policy is similar.

The post The Same US Treasury Move Sent Bitcoin From $65K to $80K – So Why Didn’t It Work This Time? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Consensys has announced it will separate into two independent companies, MetaMask for consumer self-custodial finance and Consensys for Ethereum (ETH) protocols and institutional infrastructure, with the split expected to close by the end of 2026.

The reorganization ends a single-company structure that has held for over a decade. MetaMask takes the self-custodial wallet, which the company says has passed 100 million downloads across roughly 190 countries and facilitated trillions of dollars in cumulative transaction volume.

MetaMask Turns to Consumer Finance

The new Consensys keeps the Protocols Group, including the Linea Layer-2 network, the Besu execution client, and Teku, along with its tokenization and stablecoin work for banks and asset managers.

Joe Lubin, who co-founded Consensys, will step in full-time as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of MetaMask while serving as Executive Chairman of Consensys. Mike Kriak will run Consensys as Chief Executive Officer, with David Cunningham as President.

“MetaMask grew out of that work into the world’s most widely used self-custodial wallet, and today it’s becoming something larger: a platform where people don’t just hold their assets, but manage their money in its many diverse forms and aspects. Stepping into this role full-time is a recognition that consumer finance deserves the same focus and ambition that we’ve brought to building Ethereum itself,” Lubin noted.

The independent company will stay Ethereum-first while building out Money Account, a self-custodial account that combines automated earning, instant spending and one-click trading in a single balance.

The push follows MetaMask’s launch of its own dollar stablecoin, mUSD, issued through Stripe-owned Bridge, part of a move into everyday payments that includes a Mastercard-linked card. Lubin has also confirmed MetaMask will issue its own token, with a DAO planned to fund the wallet’s growth.

Consensys Keeps the Institutional Stack

Consensys will focus on the infrastructure banks and market operators use to move tokenized assets on-chain. Its Besu client already underpins permissioned EVM networks in traditional finance, and the firm set up the Swiss-based Linea Association to decentralize the Linea zkEVM network, which launched the LINEA token for governance.

“Financial institutions and market infrastructure are moving to always-on operations with tokenization at the core,” said David Cunningham, President of Consensys. “Consensys Software Inc. has built the open-source technology that is the foundation of this transition.”

Citi’s June 2026 “Tokenization 2030” report, cited in the announcement, estimated that tokenized assets could reach $5.5 trillion to $8.2 trillion by 2030. Lubin said the two companies “will keep building the same ecosystem, just with the focus each market now demands.”

The post Consensys and MetaMask to Separate Into Two Independent Companies by End of 2026 appeared first on CryptoPotato.