#mpc
mpc
14,429 views
120 Discussing
Hot
Latest
🔐 Multi-Party Computation (MPC) Wallets: An Evolution in Crypto Security
Multi-party computation (MPC) wallets are seeing growing interest as a potential alternative to traditional seed phrases for storing cryptocurrencies. This technology aims to enhance security by splitting the private key into multiple parts and distributing them, reducing single points of failure and hacking risks.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📊 Impact: 📈 High
🏷️ OTHER
#MPC #CryptoSecurity #WalletTech #Blockchain
📰 Source: bitcoinfoundation.org
🔐 Multi-Party Computation (MPC) Wallets: An Evolution in Crypto Security
Multi-party computation (MPC) wallets are seeing growing interest as a potential alternative to traditional seed phrases for storing cryptocurrencies. This technology aims to enhance security by splitting the private key into multiple parts and distributing them, reducing single points of failure and hacking risks.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📊 Impact: 📈 High
🏷️ OTHER
#MPC #CryptoSecurity #WalletTech #Blockchain
📰 Source: bitcoinfoundation.org
Multi-party computation (MPC) wallets are seeing growing interest as a potential alternative to traditional seed phrases for storing cryptocurrencies. This technology aims to enhance security by splitting the private key into multiple parts and distributing them, reducing single points of failure and hacking risks.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📊 Impact: 📈 High
🏷️ OTHER
#MPC #CryptoSecurity #WalletTech #Blockchain
📰 Source: bitcoinfoundation.org
2
·
--
After RFI and Safeheron launch their quantum digital asset pilot this week, participating institutions will test wallet generation and on-chain transfers on the NEAR testnet. Its signature layer uses the ML-DSA-65 specified in the NIST FIPS 204 standard and is integrated with a multiparty computation (MPC) process.
The technical focus of this test is not to prove that quantum computing can already break existing wallets. Instead, it verifies whether a wallet can switch its cryptographic algorithm without rebuilding the entire custodial infrastructure.
Conventional wallets typically bind the address, private key format, transaction encoding, and signature verification rules to the same elliptic-curve cryptography stack. After migrating to ML-DSA, the public key and signature sizes will increase significantly. Hardware security modules (HSMs), MPC nodes, transaction parsers, and on-chain verification logic all need to be updated in parallel. Simply replacing the signing function in the client is not enough to complete the migration.
MPC also does not automatically provide quantum security. What it addresses is the problem that the private key does not appear as a single complete point. If the parties still jointly execute a traditional signature algorithm, the underlying mathematical assumptions do not change.
This pilot incorporates post-quantum signatures directly into the distributed key generation and signing workflow. It tests the full key lifecycle, including key generation, share storage, joint signing, and on-chain verification.
Post-quantum wallets need to have “cryptographic agility”: accounts can upgrade the signature scheme, old assets can be migrated, new and old algorithms can coexist during the transition period, and recovery and auditing processes remain effective.
The real engineering challenge is not generating a new key, but securely updating the keys across the entire authorization chain.
#钱包技术 #后量子密码 #MPC
After RFI and Safeheron launch their quantum digital asset pilot this week, participating institutions will test wallet generation and on-chain transfers on the NEAR testnet. Its signature layer uses the ML-DSA-65 specified in the NIST FIPS 204 standard and is integrated with a multiparty computation (MPC) process.
The technical focus of this test is not to prove that quantum computing can already break existing wallets. Instead, it verifies whether a wallet can switch its cryptographic algorithm without rebuilding the entire custodial infrastructure.
Conventional wallets typically bind the address, private key format, transaction encoding, and signature verification rules to the same elliptic-curve cryptography stack. After migrating to ML-DSA, the public key and signature sizes will increase significantly. Hardware security modules (HSMs), MPC nodes, transaction parsers, and on-chain verification logic all need to be updated in parallel. Simply replacing the signing function in the client is not enough to complete the migration.
MPC also does not automatically provide quantum security. What it addresses is the problem that the private key does not appear as a single complete point. If the parties still jointly execute a traditional signature algorithm, the underlying mathematical assumptions do not change.
This pilot incorporates post-quantum signatures directly into the distributed key generation and signing workflow. It tests the full key lifecycle, including key generation, share storage, joint signing, and on-chain verification.
Post-quantum wallets need to have “cryptographic agility”: accounts can upgrade the signature scheme, old assets can be migrated, new and old algorithms can coexist during the transition period, and recovery and auditing processes remain effective.
The real engineering challenge is not generating a new key, but securely updating the keys across the entire authorization chain.
#钱包技术 #后量子密码 #MPC
The technical focus of this test is not to prove that quantum computing can already break existing wallets. Instead, it verifies whether a wallet can switch its cryptographic algorithm without rebuilding the entire custodial infrastructure.
Conventional wallets typically bind the address, private key format, transaction encoding, and signature verification rules to the same elliptic-curve cryptography stack. After migrating to ML-DSA, the public key and signature sizes will increase significantly. Hardware security modules (HSMs), MPC nodes, transaction parsers, and on-chain verification logic all need to be updated in parallel. Simply replacing the signing function in the client is not enough to complete the migration.
MPC also does not automatically provide quantum security. What it addresses is the problem that the private key does not appear as a single complete point. If the parties still jointly execute a traditional signature algorithm, the underlying mathematical assumptions do not change.
This pilot incorporates post-quantum signatures directly into the distributed key generation and signing workflow. It tests the full key lifecycle, including key generation, share storage, joint signing, and on-chain verification.
Post-quantum wallets need to have “cryptographic agility”: accounts can upgrade the signature scheme, old assets can be migrated, new and old algorithms can coexist during the transition period, and recovery and auditing processes remain effective.
The real engineering challenge is not generating a new key, but securely updating the keys across the entire authorization chain.
#钱包技术 #后量子密码 #MPC
176
·
--
Threshold Escrow Is Moving from On-Chain Assets to Online Payment Infrastructure2026-08-23
Last week’s lesson was that key security can’t be judged by a one-time generation or a one-time update. Today’s signal is different at another layer: threshold signatures are being embedded into more complex, continuously online payment protocols, and the protocol’s security boundaries must be redesigned as well.
According to an IACR ePrint report, a new paper starts from Lightning’s real-world constraints: the channel endpoint depends on a single online key, and existing on-chain Bitcoin threshold signature experience cannot directly solve Lightning’s message-flow problem. The paper proposes nested threshold multisignatures and uses an Iceberg construction as an example, so that the Lightning side runs as a threshold group, while the counterparty still sees it as a standard MuSig2 participant.
Threshold Escrow Is Moving from On-Chain Assets to Online Payment Infrastructure
2026-08-23
Last week’s lesson was that key security can’t be judged by a one-time generation or a one-time update. Today’s signal is different at another layer: threshold signatures are being embedded into more complex, continuously online payment protocols, and the protocol’s security boundaries must be redesigned as well.
According to an IACR ePrint report, a new paper starts from Lightning’s real-world constraints: the channel endpoint depends on a single online key, and existing on-chain Bitcoin threshold signature experience cannot directly solve Lightning’s message-flow problem. The paper proposes nested threshold multisignatures and uses an Iceberg construction as an example, so that the Lightning side runs as a threshold group, while the counterparty still sees it as a standard MuSig2 participant.
Last week’s lesson was that key security can’t be judged by a one-time generation or a one-time update. Today’s signal is different at another layer: threshold signatures are being embedded into more complex, continuously online payment protocols, and the protocol’s security boundaries must be redesigned as well.
According to an IACR ePrint report, a new paper starts from Lightning’s real-world constraints: the channel endpoint depends on a single online key, and existing on-chain Bitcoin threshold signature experience cannot directly solve Lightning’s message-flow problem. The paper proposes nested threshold multisignatures and uses an Iceberg construction as an example, so that the Lightning side runs as a threshold group, while the counterparty still sees it as a standard MuSig2 participant.
91
·
--
Bullish
$GENIUS
🔄Cross-Chain Velocity and the MPC Execution Paradigm🤧
When evaluating decentralized trading infrastructure, most participants focus entirely on frontend speed, completely ignoring backend latency. But in high-volatility environments, the true bottleneck isn't how fast a UI renders—it's the time it takes to securely sign and route cross-chain payloads across separate distributed ledgers. Traditional multi-chain routing requires linear, state-dependent transaction signing, adding vital seconds of exposure to price degradation and front-running bots.
To achieve true capital optimization, the system architecture has to eliminate these structural bottlenecks entirely. This is where @GeniusOfficial introduces a fundamental shift through parallel Multi-Party Computation (#MPC ) execution pipelines.
Instead of processing complex multi-route trades sequentially, the terminal breaks down the transaction payload into distributed, cryptographic shares. By running these cryptographic pieces simultaneously across isolated execution nodes, the terminal can authorize and settle a split order across disparate chains (like #solana , #bnb Chain, and Base) in a single unified execution cycle.
For anyone tracking the long-term structural value of $GENIUS , this isn't just a minor optimization—it’s a defensive moat. By minimizing cross-chain signing latency, the platform drastically shrinks the execution window where MEV bots can exploit slippage. True institutional-grade decentralized trading isn't just about aggregating deep liquidity; it’s about moving that liquidity faster than the predatory bots scanning the mempool. #genius
{future}(GENIUSUSDT)
$GENIUS
🔄Cross-Chain Velocity and the MPC Execution Paradigm🤧
When evaluating decentralized trading infrastructure, most participants focus entirely on frontend speed, completely ignoring backend latency. But in high-volatility environments, the true bottleneck isn't how fast a UI renders—it's the time it takes to securely sign and route cross-chain payloads across separate distributed ledgers. Traditional multi-chain routing requires linear, state-dependent transaction signing, adding vital seconds of exposure to price degradation and front-running bots.
To achieve true capital optimization, the system architecture has to eliminate these structural bottlenecks entirely. This is where @GeniusOfficial introduces a fundamental shift through parallel Multi-Party Computation (#MPC ) execution pipelines.
Instead of processing complex multi-route trades sequentially, the terminal breaks down the transaction payload into distributed, cryptographic shares. By running these cryptographic pieces simultaneously across isolated execution nodes, the terminal can authorize and settle a split order across disparate chains (like #solana , #bnb Chain, and Base) in a single unified execution cycle.
For anyone tracking the long-term structural value of $GENIUS , this isn't just a minor optimization—it’s a defensive moat. By minimizing cross-chain signing latency, the platform drastically shrinks the execution window where MEV bots can exploit slippage. True institutional-grade decentralized trading isn't just about aggregating deep liquidity; it’s about moving that liquidity faster than the predatory bots scanning the mempool. #genius
🔄Cross-Chain Velocity and the MPC Execution Paradigm🤧
When evaluating decentralized trading infrastructure, most participants focus entirely on frontend speed, completely ignoring backend latency. But in high-volatility environments, the true bottleneck isn't how fast a UI renders—it's the time it takes to securely sign and route cross-chain payloads across separate distributed ledgers. Traditional multi-chain routing requires linear, state-dependent transaction signing, adding vital seconds of exposure to price degradation and front-running bots.
To achieve true capital optimization, the system architecture has to eliminate these structural bottlenecks entirely. This is where @GeniusOfficial introduces a fundamental shift through parallel Multi-Party Computation (#MPC ) execution pipelines.
Instead of processing complex multi-route trades sequentially, the terminal breaks down the transaction payload into distributed, cryptographic shares. By running these cryptographic pieces simultaneously across isolated execution nodes, the terminal can authorize and settle a split order across disparate chains (like #solana , #bnb Chain, and Base) in a single unified execution cycle.
For anyone tracking the long-term structural value of $GENIUS , this isn't just a minor optimization—it’s a defensive moat. By minimizing cross-chain signing latency, the platform drastically shrinks the execution window where MEV bots can exploit slippage. True institutional-grade decentralized trading isn't just about aggregating deep liquidity; it’s about moving that liquidity faster than the predatory bots scanning the mempool. #genius
87
Sui ecosystem privacy layer gets an upgrade: Seal MPC officially goes live on the mainnet.
Seal is positioned as a programmable access layer for data, AI, and digital assets. The highlight of this update is the flexibility in deployment—developers can choose to use standalone key servers, an MPC committee, or a hybrid of both, creating stronger trust assumptions.
The first mainnet MPC committee employs a 5-of-8 threshold scheme, composed of 8 node operators: Mysten Labs, Unconfirmed Labs, H2O Nodes, Ruby Nodes, Natsai, Triton One, Nodeinfra, and OverclockSol, significantly enhancing signature security and resistance to collusion.
My take: In the current climate where AI agents and on-chain data authorization scenarios are heating up, whoever cracks the "fine-grained access control + trustlessness" puzzle holds the key to the next narrative. Seal's approach of making MPC a plug-and-play module rather than a single fixed solution is much more friendly for real business applications.
It’s worth keeping an eye on whether the Sui ecosystem will see more AI and RWA projects integrating Seal for key management and data authorization.
#Sui #Seal #MPC $SUI
Sui ecosystem privacy layer gets an upgrade: Seal MPC officially goes live on the mainnet.
Seal is positioned as a programmable access layer for data, AI, and digital assets. The highlight of this update is the flexibility in deployment—developers can choose to use standalone key servers, an MPC committee, or a hybrid of both, creating stronger trust assumptions.
The first mainnet MPC committee employs a 5-of-8 threshold scheme, composed of 8 node operators: Mysten Labs, Unconfirmed Labs, H2O Nodes, Ruby Nodes, Natsai, Triton One, Nodeinfra, and OverclockSol, significantly enhancing signature security and resistance to collusion.
My take: In the current climate where AI agents and on-chain data authorization scenarios are heating up, whoever cracks the "fine-grained access control + trustlessness" puzzle holds the key to the next narrative. Seal's approach of making MPC a plug-and-play module rather than a single fixed solution is much more friendly for real business applications.
It’s worth keeping an eye on whether the Sui ecosystem will see more AI and RWA projects integrating Seal for key management and data authorization.
#Sui #Seal #MPC $SUI
Seal is positioned as a programmable access layer for data, AI, and digital assets. The highlight of this update is the flexibility in deployment—developers can choose to use standalone key servers, an MPC committee, or a hybrid of both, creating stronger trust assumptions.
The first mainnet MPC committee employs a 5-of-8 threshold scheme, composed of 8 node operators: Mysten Labs, Unconfirmed Labs, H2O Nodes, Ruby Nodes, Natsai, Triton One, Nodeinfra, and OverclockSol, significantly enhancing signature security and resistance to collusion.
My take: In the current climate where AI agents and on-chain data authorization scenarios are heating up, whoever cracks the "fine-grained access control + trustlessness" puzzle holds the key to the next narrative. Seal's approach of making MPC a plug-and-play module rather than a single fixed solution is much more friendly for real business applications.
It’s worth keeping an eye on whether the Sui ecosystem will see more AI and RWA projects integrating Seal for key management and data authorization.
#Sui #Seal #MPC $SUI
177
·
--
The Sui mainnet is rolling out a crucial infrastructure upgrade — Seal MPC is officially live.
As a programmable access layer geared towards data, AI, and digital assets, Seal is offering developers three choices: independent key servers, MPC committees, or a hybrid deployment of both. Behind this flexibility lies a stronger trust assumption — you can define your own security boundaries based on the application scenario.
The first mainnet MPC committee adopts a 5-of-8 threshold scheme, and the lineup of node operators is quite noteworthy: Mysten Labs, Unconfirmed Labs, H2O Nodes, Ruby Nodes, Natsai, Triton One, Nodeinfra, and OverclockSol. With decentralization at play, any three parties cannot collude to unlock the keys.
Why is this worth watching?
With the rise of on-chain AI, privacy computing, and custodianship of confidential assets, single-point key management is no longer sufficient. The MPC committee model spreads trust across multiple independent operators, while hybrid deployment allows projects to find a balance between decentralization and performance.
For the $SUI ecosystem, this marks a step from 'programmable assets' to 'programmable access control'. As the access layer thickens, the boundaries for applications on top can naturally expand.
Next, it will be interesting to observe how many new projects will be built on Seal and whether the committee nodes will further expand.
#Sui #Seal #MPC
The Sui mainnet is rolling out a crucial infrastructure upgrade — Seal MPC is officially live.
As a programmable access layer geared towards data, AI, and digital assets, Seal is offering developers three choices: independent key servers, MPC committees, or a hybrid deployment of both. Behind this flexibility lies a stronger trust assumption — you can define your own security boundaries based on the application scenario.
The first mainnet MPC committee adopts a 5-of-8 threshold scheme, and the lineup of node operators is quite noteworthy: Mysten Labs, Unconfirmed Labs, H2O Nodes, Ruby Nodes, Natsai, Triton One, Nodeinfra, and OverclockSol. With decentralization at play, any three parties cannot collude to unlock the keys.
Why is this worth watching?
With the rise of on-chain AI, privacy computing, and custodianship of confidential assets, single-point key management is no longer sufficient. The MPC committee model spreads trust across multiple independent operators, while hybrid deployment allows projects to find a balance between decentralization and performance.
For the $SUI ecosystem, this marks a step from 'programmable assets' to 'programmable access control'. As the access layer thickens, the boundaries for applications on top can naturally expand.
Next, it will be interesting to observe how many new projects will be built on Seal and whether the committee nodes will further expand.
#Sui #Seal #MPC
As a programmable access layer geared towards data, AI, and digital assets, Seal is offering developers three choices: independent key servers, MPC committees, or a hybrid deployment of both. Behind this flexibility lies a stronger trust assumption — you can define your own security boundaries based on the application scenario.
The first mainnet MPC committee adopts a 5-of-8 threshold scheme, and the lineup of node operators is quite noteworthy: Mysten Labs, Unconfirmed Labs, H2O Nodes, Ruby Nodes, Natsai, Triton One, Nodeinfra, and OverclockSol. With decentralization at play, any three parties cannot collude to unlock the keys.
Why is this worth watching?
With the rise of on-chain AI, privacy computing, and custodianship of confidential assets, single-point key management is no longer sufficient. The MPC committee model spreads trust across multiple independent operators, while hybrid deployment allows projects to find a balance between decentralization and performance.
For the $SUI ecosystem, this marks a step from 'programmable assets' to 'programmable access control'. As the access layer thickens, the boundaries for applications on top can naturally expand.
Next, it will be interesting to observe how many new projects will be built on Seal and whether the committee nodes will further expand.
#Sui #Seal #MPC
193
·
--
A lot of folks see cryptographic algorithms as mere 'knowledge points', but in Web3, they're actually part of a skillset:
Symmetric Encryption (AES)
👉 responsible for 'speed'
Asymmetric Encryption (RSA / ECC)
👉 responsible for 'identity'
Hash
👉 responsible for 'immutability'
But the real backbone supporting blockchain security is this evolutionary chain:
Private Key → Threshold Secret Sharing → Threshold Signature → BLS → MPC
This is a path from 'individual control' to 'collective consensus security'.
Threshold Secret Sharing breaks a private key into n parts, where any k parts can restore it.
👉 Solves: The private key is no longer controlled by just one person.
Threshold Signature (Threshold Signature) allows k individuals among n to collectively sign, appearing on-chain as 'one signature'.
👉 Security shifts from 'single point' to 'organizational level'.
BLS Signature: Based on bilinear pairing, inherently supports signature aggregation and threshold characteristics, serving as core infrastructure for PoS, public chain consensus, DA, and Rollup validator systems.
MPC (Multi-Party Computation): Not a new signing algorithm, but rather: completing signature calculations without reconstructing the complete private key. Combining network protocols, ZK, and consensus mechanisms transforms 'signing rights' into a 'collaborative process'.
In conclusion:
ECDSA / EdDSA solve 'I can sign'
Threshold Signatures solve 'we sign together'
BLS solves 'many sign efficiently'
MPC solves 'everyone signs but no one actually holds the complete private key'
This is why exchanges, custodians, L2s, validators, and Rollup Sequencers are moving from the 'private key' era to a security architecture of Threshold + BLS + MPC.
Cryptography isn't just algorithms; it's also the design of organizational security structures. #密码学 #安全 #MPC
A lot of folks see cryptographic algorithms as mere 'knowledge points', but in Web3, they're actually part of a skillset:
Symmetric Encryption (AES)
👉 responsible for 'speed'
Asymmetric Encryption (RSA / ECC)
👉 responsible for 'identity'
Hash
👉 responsible for 'immutability'
But the real backbone supporting blockchain security is this evolutionary chain:
Private Key → Threshold Secret Sharing → Threshold Signature → BLS → MPC
This is a path from 'individual control' to 'collective consensus security'.
Threshold Secret Sharing breaks a private key into n parts, where any k parts can restore it.
👉 Solves: The private key is no longer controlled by just one person.
Threshold Signature (Threshold Signature) allows k individuals among n to collectively sign, appearing on-chain as 'one signature'.
👉 Security shifts from 'single point' to 'organizational level'.
BLS Signature: Based on bilinear pairing, inherently supports signature aggregation and threshold characteristics, serving as core infrastructure for PoS, public chain consensus, DA, and Rollup validator systems.
MPC (Multi-Party Computation): Not a new signing algorithm, but rather: completing signature calculations without reconstructing the complete private key. Combining network protocols, ZK, and consensus mechanisms transforms 'signing rights' into a 'collaborative process'.
In conclusion:
ECDSA / EdDSA solve 'I can sign'
Threshold Signatures solve 'we sign together'
BLS solves 'many sign efficiently'
MPC solves 'everyone signs but no one actually holds the complete private key'
This is why exchanges, custodians, L2s, validators, and Rollup Sequencers are moving from the 'private key' era to a security architecture of Threshold + BLS + MPC.
Cryptography isn't just algorithms; it's also the design of organizational security structures. #密码学 #安全 #MPC
Symmetric Encryption (AES)
👉 responsible for 'speed'
Asymmetric Encryption (RSA / ECC)
👉 responsible for 'identity'
Hash
👉 responsible for 'immutability'
But the real backbone supporting blockchain security is this evolutionary chain:
Private Key → Threshold Secret Sharing → Threshold Signature → BLS → MPC
This is a path from 'individual control' to 'collective consensus security'.
Threshold Secret Sharing breaks a private key into n parts, where any k parts can restore it.
👉 Solves: The private key is no longer controlled by just one person.
Threshold Signature (Threshold Signature) allows k individuals among n to collectively sign, appearing on-chain as 'one signature'.
👉 Security shifts from 'single point' to 'organizational level'.
BLS Signature: Based on bilinear pairing, inherently supports signature aggregation and threshold characteristics, serving as core infrastructure for PoS, public chain consensus, DA, and Rollup validator systems.
MPC (Multi-Party Computation): Not a new signing algorithm, but rather: completing signature calculations without reconstructing the complete private key. Combining network protocols, ZK, and consensus mechanisms transforms 'signing rights' into a 'collaborative process'.
In conclusion:
ECDSA / EdDSA solve 'I can sign'
Threshold Signatures solve 'we sign together'
BLS solves 'many sign efficiently'
MPC solves 'everyone signs but no one actually holds the complete private key'
This is why exchanges, custodians, L2s, validators, and Rollup Sequencers are moving from the 'private key' era to a security architecture of Threshold + BLS + MPC.
Cryptography isn't just algorithms; it's also the design of organizational security structures. #密码学 #安全 #MPC
137
·
--
Your assets need a more powerful guardian.🛡️
The Envo MPC wallet breaks through the limitations of traditional wallets with MPC technology + a 120-million-character ultra-long private-key system, offering a safer and smarter asset protection solution. Simple backup, secure storage—so every on-chain operation feels more安心.
#Envo #MPC
Your assets need a more powerful guardian.🛡️
The Envo MPC wallet breaks through the limitations of traditional wallets with MPC technology + a 120-million-character ultra-long private-key system, offering a safer and smarter asset protection solution. Simple backup, secure storage—so every on-chain operation feels more安心.
#Envo #MPC
The Envo MPC wallet breaks through the limitations of traditional wallets with MPC technology + a 120-million-character ultra-long private-key system, offering a safer and smarter asset protection solution. Simple backup, secure storage—so every on-chain operation feels more安心.
#Envo #MPC
1
45
·
--
Blockchain did not bypass the basic boundaries of MPC, and regulation did not bypass record control2026-09-04
Two signals today: one from cryptography research, and one from U.S. securities regulation. Blockchain can provide persistence and finality, but it does not automatically change the classical fault-tolerance threshold for asynchronous MPC. Meanwhile, the SEC has proposed updating the rules for registered transfer agents, bringing electronic records, blockchain records, and risk management under the same modernized framework. [1][2]
According to IACR ePrint 2026/1860, researchers separately analyze asynchronous verifiable secret sharing and asynchronous multi-party computation in blockchain hybrid models. The paper points out that in the absence of a trusted setup, or when relying only on the Minicrypt assumption, asynchronous MPC is still subject to the classical fault-tolerance boundary constraints. Under a public-key assumption with a trusted setup, the authors construct a scheme that tolerates Byzantine adversaries and make the on-chain communication complexity independent of the circuit size. [1]
Blockchain did not bypass the basic boundaries of MPC, and regulation did not bypass record control
2026-09-04
Two signals today: one from cryptography research, and one from U.S. securities regulation. Blockchain can provide persistence and finality, but it does not automatically change the classical fault-tolerance threshold for asynchronous MPC. Meanwhile, the SEC has proposed updating the rules for registered transfer agents, bringing electronic records, blockchain records, and risk management under the same modernized framework. [1][2]
According to IACR ePrint 2026/1860, researchers separately analyze asynchronous verifiable secret sharing and asynchronous multi-party computation in blockchain hybrid models. The paper points out that in the absence of a trusted setup, or when relying only on the Minicrypt assumption, asynchronous MPC is still subject to the classical fault-tolerance boundary constraints. Under a public-key assumption with a trusted setup, the authors construct a scheme that tolerates Byzantine adversaries and make the on-chain communication complexity independent of the circuit size. [1]
Two signals today: one from cryptography research, and one from U.S. securities regulation. Blockchain can provide persistence and finality, but it does not automatically change the classical fault-tolerance threshold for asynchronous MPC. Meanwhile, the SEC has proposed updating the rules for registered transfer agents, bringing electronic records, blockchain records, and risk management under the same modernized framework. [1][2]
According to IACR ePrint 2026/1860, researchers separately analyze asynchronous verifiable secret sharing and asynchronous multi-party computation in blockchain hybrid models. The paper points out that in the absence of a trusted setup, or when relying only on the Minicrypt assumption, asynchronous MPC is still subject to the classical fault-tolerance boundary constraints. Under a public-key assumption with a trusted setup, the authors construct a scheme that tolerates Byzantine adversaries and make the on-chain communication complexity independent of the circuit size. [1]
75
·
--
Verified
#genius $GENIUS Genius Terminal looks like a serious attempt to compress the mess of on-chain trading into a single execution layer.
Instead of forcing users to deal with DEXs, bridges, wallets, and mempools separately, it shifts everything into an “execution plane” where you interact through intent, not infrastructure. Ghost Orders and MPC-based routing are the core ideas here—not just UX upgrades, but a change in how exposure itself is handled.
What I find interesting isn’t the feature list, but the direction: hiding operational complexity while still trying to keep things verifiable and self-custodial.
That said, I’m cautious. Private execution always creates a tension—less transparency in a system that was built on openness. The real question is whether it can stay fair and liquid when things get volatile and high-volume.
If it works, it’s not just another trading interface—it becomes execution infrastructure.
If it doesn’t, it’s just another elegant idea that couldn’t survive real market stress.
#DeFi #Blockchain #MPC
@GeniusOfficial
$GENIUS
#genius
{future}(GENIUSUSDT)
#genius $GENIUS Genius Terminal looks like a serious attempt to compress the mess of on-chain trading into a single execution layer.
Instead of forcing users to deal with DEXs, bridges, wallets, and mempools separately, it shifts everything into an “execution plane” where you interact through intent, not infrastructure. Ghost Orders and MPC-based routing are the core ideas here—not just UX upgrades, but a change in how exposure itself is handled.
What I find interesting isn’t the feature list, but the direction: hiding operational complexity while still trying to keep things verifiable and self-custodial.
That said, I’m cautious. Private execution always creates a tension—less transparency in a system that was built on openness. The real question is whether it can stay fair and liquid when things get volatile and high-volume.
If it works, it’s not just another trading interface—it becomes execution infrastructure.
If it doesn’t, it’s just another elegant idea that couldn’t survive real market stress.
#DeFi #Blockchain #MPC
@GeniusOfficial
$GENIUS
#genius
Instead of forcing users to deal with DEXs, bridges, wallets, and mempools separately, it shifts everything into an “execution plane” where you interact through intent, not infrastructure. Ghost Orders and MPC-based routing are the core ideas here—not just UX upgrades, but a change in how exposure itself is handled.
What I find interesting isn’t the feature list, but the direction: hiding operational complexity while still trying to keep things verifiable and self-custodial.
That said, I’m cautious. Private execution always creates a tension—less transparency in a system that was built on openness. The real question is whether it can stay fair and liquid when things get volatile and high-volume.
If it works, it’s not just another trading interface—it becomes execution infrastructure.
If it doesn’t, it’s just another elegant idea that couldn’t survive real market stress.
#DeFi #Blockchain #MPC
@GeniusOfficial
$GENIUS
#genius
38
20
716
·
--
Bullish
Robinhood’s Chain, Stock Tokens, and Agentic Trading: The Next Threshold Is Authorization Boundaries
Robinhood’s recent roadmap places the Robinhood Chain mainnet, Stock Tokens, Agentic Trading, and DeFi products within the same expansion plan. The significance of this combination isn’t just “more assets on-chain”; it’s that traditional financial entry points, on-chain liquidity, and automated operations are beginning to share a single user journey.
For the industry, the competitive issue will shift from “what you can trade” to “how users authorize”: What actions can an Agent initiate? Before signing, can users clearly see the target and scope? Can authorization be paused, revoked, or restored? After an anomaly occurs, who has final control?
When complex workflows are concealed behind simpler product interfaces, account and wallet control surfaces must be made explicitly visible. The first problem automated trading needs to solve isn’t making Agents smarter—it’s ensuring users understand who can sign, what they signed, and how to recover permissions.
#AI #Web3 #MPC #RobinhoodChain
Robinhood’s Chain, Stock Tokens, and Agentic Trading: The Next Threshold Is Authorization Boundaries
Robinhood’s recent roadmap places the Robinhood Chain mainnet, Stock Tokens, Agentic Trading, and DeFi products within the same expansion plan. The significance of this combination isn’t just “more assets on-chain”; it’s that traditional financial entry points, on-chain liquidity, and automated operations are beginning to share a single user journey.
For the industry, the competitive issue will shift from “what you can trade” to “how users authorize”: What actions can an Agent initiate? Before signing, can users clearly see the target and scope? Can authorization be paused, revoked, or restored? After an anomaly occurs, who has final control?
When complex workflows are concealed behind simpler product interfaces, account and wallet control surfaces must be made explicitly visible. The first problem automated trading needs to solve isn’t making Agents smarter—it’s ensuring users understand who can sign, what they signed, and how to recover permissions.
#AI #Web3 #MPC #RobinhoodChain
Robinhood’s recent roadmap places the Robinhood Chain mainnet, Stock Tokens, Agentic Trading, and DeFi products within the same expansion plan. The significance of this combination isn’t just “more assets on-chain”; it’s that traditional financial entry points, on-chain liquidity, and automated operations are beginning to share a single user journey.
For the industry, the competitive issue will shift from “what you can trade” to “how users authorize”: What actions can an Agent initiate? Before signing, can users clearly see the target and scope? Can authorization be paused, revoked, or restored? After an anomaly occurs, who has final control?
When complex workflows are concealed behind simpler product interfaces, account and wallet control surfaces must be made explicitly visible. The first problem automated trading needs to solve isn’t making Agents smarter—it’s ensuring users understand who can sign, what they signed, and how to recover permissions.
#AI #Web3 #MPC #RobinhoodChain
56
·
--
Coldcard third-wave attack funds keep moving: what questions custody systems must answer2026-09-08
The Block, CoinDesk, Cointelegraph, and Decrypt all reported that the bitcoins obtained in Coldcard’s third wave of attacks recently saw large transfers. Citing tracking by Galaxy Research, the reports said that about 45% of the funds stolen in the third wave have already been moved.
From an industry perspective, the focus is not just on fund flows, but on whether the custody system can quickly respond after an anomaly occurs: which vaults are affected, which authorizations remain valid, whether remaining funds can be isolated, and which control paths are still trustworthy after recovery.
If a system can only trace addresses after a transaction occurs, it solves the forensics problem; a more complete control plane also needs to connect key generation, signing permissions, anomaly detection, and the pause-and-recovery workflows. After the Coldcard incident, whether subsequent updates can clarify if the attacker obtained a single key, batch authorizations, or even higher-level key management privileges is still worth watching.
Coldcard third-wave attack funds keep moving: what questions custody systems must answer
2026-09-08
The Block, CoinDesk, Cointelegraph, and Decrypt all reported that the bitcoins obtained in Coldcard’s third wave of attacks recently saw large transfers. Citing tracking by Galaxy Research, the reports said that about 45% of the funds stolen in the third wave have already been moved.
From an industry perspective, the focus is not just on fund flows, but on whether the custody system can quickly respond after an anomaly occurs: which vaults are affected, which authorizations remain valid, whether remaining funds can be isolated, and which control paths are still trustworthy after recovery.
If a system can only trace addresses after a transaction occurs, it solves the forensics problem; a more complete control plane also needs to connect key generation, signing permissions, anomaly detection, and the pause-and-recovery workflows. After the Coldcard incident, whether subsequent updates can clarify if the attacker obtained a single key, batch authorizations, or even higher-level key management privileges is still worth watching.
The Block, CoinDesk, Cointelegraph, and Decrypt all reported that the bitcoins obtained in Coldcard’s third wave of attacks recently saw large transfers. Citing tracking by Galaxy Research, the reports said that about 45% of the funds stolen in the third wave have already been moved.
From an industry perspective, the focus is not just on fund flows, but on whether the custody system can quickly respond after an anomaly occurs: which vaults are affected, which authorizations remain valid, whether remaining funds can be isolated, and which control paths are still trustworthy after recovery.
If a system can only trace addresses after a transaction occurs, it solves the forensics problem; a more complete control plane also needs to connect key generation, signing permissions, anomaly detection, and the pause-and-recovery workflows. After the Coldcard incident, whether subsequent updates can clarify if the attacker obtained a single key, batch authorizations, or even higher-level key management privileges is still worth watching.
34
·
--
Orionx Shutdown: For Custodial Platforms, the Hardest Reconciliation May Not Be On-Chain Balances2026-09-07
Cointelegraph reported that Orionx, the Tether-backed Chilean crypto trading platform, will permanently shut down. A forensic audit found that over $7 million in customer assets were transferred to wallets not managed by the platform; the platform said its top priority is to return customer assets as much as possible, and withdrawals are temporarily suspended.
According to Cointelegraph, an audit compared the platform's system records with on-chain verifiable data and found that the BTC, ETH, XRP, and POL balances recorded on the books exceeded the amounts actually held in custody addresses. The report also said a criminal complaint alleged that some assets left custody between 2018 and 2021 and flowed into other platform accounts, but former executives involved denied the allegations, and the cause of the asset shortfall remains unclear.
Orionx Shutdown: For Custodial Platforms, the Hardest Reconciliation May Not Be On-Chain Balances
2026-09-07
Cointelegraph reported that Orionx, the Tether-backed Chilean crypto trading platform, will permanently shut down. A forensic audit found that over $7 million in customer assets were transferred to wallets not managed by the platform; the platform said its top priority is to return customer assets as much as possible, and withdrawals are temporarily suspended.
According to Cointelegraph, an audit compared the platform's system records with on-chain verifiable data and found that the BTC, ETH, XRP, and POL balances recorded on the books exceeded the amounts actually held in custody addresses. The report also said a criminal complaint alleged that some assets left custody between 2018 and 2021 and flowed into other platform accounts, but former executives involved denied the allegations, and the cause of the asset shortfall remains unclear.
Cointelegraph reported that Orionx, the Tether-backed Chilean crypto trading platform, will permanently shut down. A forensic audit found that over $7 million in customer assets were transferred to wallets not managed by the platform; the platform said its top priority is to return customer assets as much as possible, and withdrawals are temporarily suspended.
According to Cointelegraph, an audit compared the platform's system records with on-chain verifiable data and found that the BTC, ETH, XRP, and POL balances recorded on the books exceeded the amounts actually held in custody addresses. The report also said a criminal complaint alleged that some assets left custody between 2018 and 2021 and flowed into other platform accounts, but former executives involved denied the allegations, and the cause of the asset shortfall remains unclear.
62
·
--
SEC Updates Transfer Agent Rules: Blockchain Registration Begins Facing Operational Control2026-09-03
According to an SEC notice, on September 1, the SEC proposed updates to the rules and forms for registered transfer agents. The SEC said that transfer agents perform functions such as issuing and canceling securities, processing transfers, and maintaining the official ownership records of issuers’ securities, while the current rules have not been substantively updated since the late 1970s and early 1980s.
According to SEC facts and findings, the proposal would cover requirements related to electronic and blockchain-based recordkeeping, paperless securities, and transfer agents’ turnover, risk management, and dormant security holders.
According to a report by The Defiant, the proposed risk management rules would require transfer agents to establish written policies, identify, assess, monitor, and mitigate material risks arising from business operations, and prepare business continuity plans and segregated bank accounts. The proposal is not yet in effect, and the public comment period will last 60 days after publication in the (Federal Register).
SEC Updates Transfer Agent Rules: Blockchain Registration Begins Facing Operational Control
2026-09-03
According to an SEC notice, on September 1, the SEC proposed updates to the rules and forms for registered transfer agents. The SEC said that transfer agents perform functions such as issuing and canceling securities, processing transfers, and maintaining the official ownership records of issuers’ securities, while the current rules have not been substantively updated since the late 1970s and early 1980s.
According to SEC facts and findings, the proposal would cover requirements related to electronic and blockchain-based recordkeeping, paperless securities, and transfer agents’ turnover, risk management, and dormant security holders.
According to a report by The Defiant, the proposed risk management rules would require transfer agents to establish written policies, identify, assess, monitor, and mitigate material risks arising from business operations, and prepare business continuity plans and segregated bank accounts. The proposal is not yet in effect, and the public comment period will last 60 days after publication in the (Federal Register).
According to an SEC notice, on September 1, the SEC proposed updates to the rules and forms for registered transfer agents. The SEC said that transfer agents perform functions such as issuing and canceling securities, processing transfers, and maintaining the official ownership records of issuers’ securities, while the current rules have not been substantively updated since the late 1970s and early 1980s.
According to SEC facts and findings, the proposal would cover requirements related to electronic and blockchain-based recordkeeping, paperless securities, and transfer agents’ turnover, risk management, and dormant security holders.
According to a report by The Defiant, the proposed risk management rules would require transfer agents to establish written policies, identify, assess, monitor, and mitigate material risks arising from business operations, and prepare business continuity plans and segregated bank accounts. The proposal is not yet in effect, and the public comment period will last 60 days after publication in the (Federal Register).
83
·
--
Institutional custody is shifting from “key custody” to “managing the control plane”
Last week’s regulatory signals were still about redefining the boundaries of digital-asset custody; this week, institutional moves have folded custody, tokenization, and trading governance into a single set of foundational infrastructure issues.
According to an SEC announcement, on September 1 the SEC proposed updates to rules and forms governing registered transfer agents, aiming to incorporate electronic communications and blockchain technology into the rule framework for securities issuance and share transfers. The proposal is still open for public comment, with a 60-day comment period following Federal Register publication.
As reported by The Block, the changes are aimed at the electronic market environment in which blockchain, tokenized securities, and artificial intelligence operate. Institutions handling tokenized securities, distributed ledgers, and smart contracts must address risks around data integrity, security, and operating models. Institutions using AI or automated systems must demonstrate capabilities for control, accurate descriptions, and effective oversight.
Business actions in Asia are even more specific. Cointelegraph reports that Ripple and SettleMint are collaborating to provide Asian institutions with custody, issuance, and management solutions covering the full lifecycle of tokenized assets. Coincheck Group and DFNS have also announced plans to build digital-asset wallet technology and custody services in Japan.
According to a BusinessWire release, this kind of institutional infrastructure places the transaction lifecycle, workflow orchestration, policies and governance, key management, and third-party service integrations within a single control plane, offering SaaS, hybrid, and on-prem deployment options. The enterprise solution described in the announcement should not be extrapolated as universal capabilities for all wallets.
What’s worth tracking today isn’t who has announced “institutional-grade custody,” but four verifiable questions: who can initiate transactions, who can approve transactions, where policies are enforced, and who manages key material under which deployment mode.
Position disclosure: This article is published by the operator of CoWallet for industry information only and does not constitute investment advice.https://cowallet.ai/en?pid=jingle
Source: SEC; The Block; Cointelegraph; BusinessWire; CoinDesk.
#AI #Web3 #MPC #Tokenization
Institutional custody is shifting from “key custody” to “managing the control plane”
Last week’s regulatory signals were still about redefining the boundaries of digital-asset custody; this week, institutional moves have folded custody, tokenization, and trading governance into a single set of foundational infrastructure issues.
According to an SEC announcement, on September 1 the SEC proposed updates to rules and forms governing registered transfer agents, aiming to incorporate electronic communications and blockchain technology into the rule framework for securities issuance and share transfers. The proposal is still open for public comment, with a 60-day comment period following Federal Register publication.
As reported by The Block, the changes are aimed at the electronic market environment in which blockchain, tokenized securities, and artificial intelligence operate. Institutions handling tokenized securities, distributed ledgers, and smart contracts must address risks around data integrity, security, and operating models. Institutions using AI or automated systems must demonstrate capabilities for control, accurate descriptions, and effective oversight.
Business actions in Asia are even more specific. Cointelegraph reports that Ripple and SettleMint are collaborating to provide Asian institutions with custody, issuance, and management solutions covering the full lifecycle of tokenized assets. Coincheck Group and DFNS have also announced plans to build digital-asset wallet technology and custody services in Japan.
According to a BusinessWire release, this kind of institutional infrastructure places the transaction lifecycle, workflow orchestration, policies and governance, key management, and third-party service integrations within a single control plane, offering SaaS, hybrid, and on-prem deployment options. The enterprise solution described in the announcement should not be extrapolated as universal capabilities for all wallets.
What’s worth tracking today isn’t who has announced “institutional-grade custody,” but four verifiable questions: who can initiate transactions, who can approve transactions, where policies are enforced, and who manages key material under which deployment mode.
Position disclosure: This article is published by the operator of CoWallet for industry information only and does not constitute investment advice.https://cowallet.ai/en?pid=jingle
Source: SEC; The Block; Cointelegraph; BusinessWire; CoinDesk.
#AI #Web3 #MPC #Tokenization
Last week’s regulatory signals were still about redefining the boundaries of digital-asset custody; this week, institutional moves have folded custody, tokenization, and trading governance into a single set of foundational infrastructure issues.
According to an SEC announcement, on September 1 the SEC proposed updates to rules and forms governing registered transfer agents, aiming to incorporate electronic communications and blockchain technology into the rule framework for securities issuance and share transfers. The proposal is still open for public comment, with a 60-day comment period following Federal Register publication.
As reported by The Block, the changes are aimed at the electronic market environment in which blockchain, tokenized securities, and artificial intelligence operate. Institutions handling tokenized securities, distributed ledgers, and smart contracts must address risks around data integrity, security, and operating models. Institutions using AI or automated systems must demonstrate capabilities for control, accurate descriptions, and effective oversight.
Business actions in Asia are even more specific. Cointelegraph reports that Ripple and SettleMint are collaborating to provide Asian institutions with custody, issuance, and management solutions covering the full lifecycle of tokenized assets. Coincheck Group and DFNS have also announced plans to build digital-asset wallet technology and custody services in Japan.
According to a BusinessWire release, this kind of institutional infrastructure places the transaction lifecycle, workflow orchestration, policies and governance, key management, and third-party service integrations within a single control plane, offering SaaS, hybrid, and on-prem deployment options. The enterprise solution described in the announcement should not be extrapolated as universal capabilities for all wallets.
What’s worth tracking today isn’t who has announced “institutional-grade custody,” but four verifiable questions: who can initiate transactions, who can approve transactions, where policies are enforced, and who manages key material under which deployment mode.
Position disclosure: This article is published by the operator of CoWallet for industry information only and does not constitute investment advice.https://cowallet.ai/en?pid=jingle
Source: SEC; The Block; Cointelegraph; BusinessWire; CoinDesk.
#AI #Web3 #MPC #Tokenization
85
·
--
SEC Crypto Asset Custody Rules Enter Review: What Can and Cannot Be Confirmed NowThe U.S. SEC’s “Amendments to the Custody Rules” has entered the proposed rulemaking stage. The regulatory agenda indicates that the project would modernize the custody rules for investment adviser clients’ assets and investment company fund assets, and include crypto assets in the scope that needs to be addressed.[1]
This is not a set of newly effective requirements. Public materials currently do not provide the text of the proposed rules, nor do they specify which entities would be recognized as custodial for crypto assets, what the specific control standards would be, or which existing provisions would be amended. The agenda only lists the NPRM target date as October 2026, with no statutory deadline.[1]
SEC Crypto Asset Custody Rules Enter Review: What Can and Cannot Be Confirmed Now
The U.S. SEC’s “Amendments to the Custody Rules” has entered the proposed rulemaking stage. The regulatory agenda indicates that the project would modernize the custody rules for investment adviser clients’ assets and investment company fund assets, and include crypto assets in the scope that needs to be addressed.[1]
This is not a set of newly effective requirements. Public materials currently do not provide the text of the proposed rules, nor do they specify which entities would be recognized as custodial for crypto assets, what the specific control standards would be, or which existing provisions would be amended. The agenda only lists the NPRM target date as October 2026, with no statutory deadline.[1]
This is not a set of newly effective requirements. Public materials currently do not provide the text of the proposed rules, nor do they specify which entities would be recognized as custodial for crypto assets, what the specific control standards would be, or which existing provisions would be amended. The agenda only lists the NPRM target date as October 2026, with no statutory deadline.[1]
81
·
--
U.S. SEC Crypto Asset Custody Rules Rewrite Enters White House Review: What Can Be Determined Now?According to a report by The Defiant, the U.S. SEC intends to rewrite the custody rules for investment advisers and investment companies, and entered the White House review process on August 25. The regulatory agenda mentions that the new rules would clarify how these entities would custody crypto assets under existing Commission requirements.
But “entering review” does not mean the rules have already been finalized. The proposed provisions have not yet been disclosed in the current public record, so the market still does not know which entities could be considered qualified custodians, what specific control measures would be, or which existing requirements would be adjusted.
This plan also differs from the 2023 safeguarding proposal. The latter had proposed extending the custody rules for investment advisers to all clients’ assets and involving asset segregation, insolvency protection for custodians, and recordkeeping. The SEC officially withdrew that proposal in June 2025 and stated that subsequent regulatory action would require a new proposal.
U.S. SEC Crypto Asset Custody Rules Rewrite Enters White House Review: What Can Be Determined Now?
According to a report by The Defiant, the U.S. SEC intends to rewrite the custody rules for investment advisers and investment companies, and entered the White House review process on August 25. The regulatory agenda mentions that the new rules would clarify how these entities would custody crypto assets under existing Commission requirements.
But “entering review” does not mean the rules have already been finalized. The proposed provisions have not yet been disclosed in the current public record, so the market still does not know which entities could be considered qualified custodians, what specific control measures would be, or which existing requirements would be adjusted.
This plan also differs from the 2023 safeguarding proposal. The latter had proposed extending the custody rules for investment advisers to all clients’ assets and involving asset segregation, insolvency protection for custodians, and recordkeeping. The SEC officially withdrew that proposal in June 2025 and stated that subsequent regulatory action would require a new proposal.
But “entering review” does not mean the rules have already been finalized. The proposed provisions have not yet been disclosed in the current public record, so the market still does not know which entities could be considered qualified custodians, what specific control measures would be, or which existing requirements would be adjusted.
This plan also differs from the 2023 safeguarding proposal. The latter had proposed extending the custody rules for investment advisers to all clients’ assets and involving asset segregation, insolvency protection for custodians, and recordkeeping. The SEC officially withdrew that proposal in June 2025 and stated that subsequent regulatory action would require a new proposal.
87
·
--
When the Display and Signature on a Hardware Wallet No Longer Match One-to-One2026-08-28
Hardware wallet security is often simplified to “check the screen and confirm.” But a Ledger Donjon notice from August 27 reminds us that the screen is also an explanation link that needs to be verified. The key is not only whether the private key leaves the device, but also whether the transaction shown on the device fully corresponds to the final authorization content.
According to a Ledger Donjon notice, affected Ethereum applications may only review a single operation within a specific transaction list, but the signature will still authorize the full transaction. The announcement explains that an attacker can construct a transaction that makes the device display an apparently harmless operation, while the signature simultaneously authorizes other operations in the list.
When the Display and Signature on a Hardware Wallet No Longer Match One-to-One
2026-08-28
Hardware wallet security is often simplified to “check the screen and confirm.” But a Ledger Donjon notice from August 27 reminds us that the screen is also an explanation link that needs to be verified. The key is not only whether the private key leaves the device, but also whether the transaction shown on the device fully corresponds to the final authorization content.
According to a Ledger Donjon notice, affected Ethereum applications may only review a single operation within a specific transaction list, but the signature will still authorize the full transaction. The announcement explains that an attacker can construct a transaction that makes the device display an apparently harmless operation, while the signature simultaneously authorizes other operations in the list.
Hardware wallet security is often simplified to “check the screen and confirm.” But a Ledger Donjon notice from August 27 reminds us that the screen is also an explanation link that needs to be verified. The key is not only whether the private key leaves the device, but also whether the transaction shown on the device fully corresponds to the final authorization content.
According to a Ledger Donjon notice, affected Ethereum applications may only review a single operation within a specific transaction list, but the signature will still authorize the full transaction. The announcement explains that an attacker can construct a transaction that makes the device display an apparently harmless operation, while the signature simultaneously authorizes other operations in the list.
152
·
--
After tokenized assets enter a wallet, who manages the automation?2026-08-26
The focus yesterday was still “can assets be put on-chain?” Today, the question is layered differently: once assets enter a wallet, who manages the automation?
According to a CoinDesk report, Bitwise has launched an automated portfolio composed of tokenized U.S. stocks from Coinbase. Investors hold individual units in their wallet, and Glider automatically rebalances. The report also says the software can adjust the portfolio using models provided by professional money managers, rather than buying ETFs or other pooled funds through a brokerage account. [Source: CoinDesk]
Another thread is trade finance. According to a CoinDesk report, POSCO International, Olea, and Intain completed a transaction: Intain uses AI to cross-check invoices, purchase orders, credit memo notices, and shipping documents, and then records the accounts receivable on a network based on Avalanche. [Source: CoinDesk]
After tokenized assets enter a wallet, who manages the automation?
2026-08-26
The focus yesterday was still “can assets be put on-chain?” Today, the question is layered differently: once assets enter a wallet, who manages the automation?
According to a CoinDesk report, Bitwise has launched an automated portfolio composed of tokenized U.S. stocks from Coinbase. Investors hold individual units in their wallet, and Glider automatically rebalances. The report also says the software can adjust the portfolio using models provided by professional money managers, rather than buying ETFs or other pooled funds through a brokerage account. [Source: CoinDesk]
Another thread is trade finance. According to a CoinDesk report, POSCO International, Olea, and Intain completed a transaction: Intain uses AI to cross-check invoices, purchase orders, credit memo notices, and shipping documents, and then records the accounts receivable on a network based on Avalanche. [Source: CoinDesk]
The focus yesterday was still “can assets be put on-chain?” Today, the question is layered differently: once assets enter a wallet, who manages the automation?
According to a CoinDesk report, Bitwise has launched an automated portfolio composed of tokenized U.S. stocks from Coinbase. Investors hold individual units in their wallet, and Glider automatically rebalances. The report also says the software can adjust the portfolio using models provided by professional money managers, rather than buying ETFs or other pooled funds through a brokerage account. [Source: CoinDesk]
Another thread is trade finance. According to a CoinDesk report, POSCO International, Olea, and Intain completed a transaction: Intain uses AI to cross-check invoices, purchase orders, credit memo notices, and shipping documents, and then records the accounts receivable on a network based on Avalanche. [Source: CoinDesk]
88
·
--
AI agents are moving from “helping people find information” to “buying services on their behalf”2026-08-24
According to CoinDesk’s report on August 23, the most common use cases for today’s agentic payments aren’t yet for agents to book flights on a user’s behalf. Instead, they involve agents paying small, per-transaction fees for data, compute, and APIs. The report compares the current phase to the early experimental stage of agentic payments: the infrastructure is growing, but the sources of funding, responsibility allocation, and security boundaries are still not well defined.
This changes the wallet problem. Payment is no longer just a one-time click; it’s an authorization that can be executed. For an agent, “being able to pay” isn’t the endpoint—it also has to know which services can be paid for, what the per-transaction limit is, how much can be spent in a day, and when it must hand back confirmation authority to the human.
AI agents are moving from “helping people find information” to “buying services on their behalf”
2026-08-24
According to CoinDesk’s report on August 23, the most common use cases for today’s agentic payments aren’t yet for agents to book flights on a user’s behalf. Instead, they involve agents paying small, per-transaction fees for data, compute, and APIs. The report compares the current phase to the early experimental stage of agentic payments: the infrastructure is growing, but the sources of funding, responsibility allocation, and security boundaries are still not well defined.
This changes the wallet problem. Payment is no longer just a one-time click; it’s an authorization that can be executed. For an agent, “being able to pay” isn’t the endpoint—it also has to know which services can be paid for, what the per-transaction limit is, how much can be spent in a day, and when it must hand back confirmation authority to the human.
According to CoinDesk’s report on August 23, the most common use cases for today’s agentic payments aren’t yet for agents to book flights on a user’s behalf. Instead, they involve agents paying small, per-transaction fees for data, compute, and APIs. The report compares the current phase to the early experimental stage of agentic payments: the infrastructure is growing, but the sources of funding, responsibility allocation, and security boundaries are still not well defined.
This changes the wallet problem. Payment is no longer just a one-time click; it’s an authorization that can be executed. For an agent, “being able to pay” isn’t the endpoint—it also has to know which services can be paid for, what the per-transaction limit is, how much can be spent in a day, and when it must hand back confirmation authority to the human.
98
Log in to explore more content
Join global crypto users on Binance Square
⚡️ Get latest and useful information about crypto.
💬 Trusted by the world’s largest crypto exchange.
👍 Discover real insights from verified creators.
Email / Phone number
Trending Topics
1
#USAugustPPIRisesLessThanExpected
10,058 views
333 Discussing
2
#SECApprovesNasdaqTexasCommodityTrustRule
8,502 views
317 Discussing
3
#ECBRaisesRatesSecondTimeTo2.5%
5,479 views
228 Discussing
4
#USContinuingJoblessClaims1.774M
11,473 views
320 Discussing
5
#USAugustPPIYoYRisesTo5.4%
10,951 views
248 Discussing
6
#AppleDebutsFoldablePhone
79,210 views
1,309 Discussing
7
#TSMCAugustRevenueUp53.3%YoY
19,595 views
495 Discussing
8
#IranSaysReadyToEscalateWarWithUS
28,526 views
496 Discussing
9
#EUExtendsCentralContactPointToCASPs
24,113 views
498 Discussing
10
#US10YTreasuryYieldHitsHighestSinceNov2023
53,129 views
759 Discussing