Crypto Breaking

DBS and Citi have completed what they describe as the first weekend tokenized cross-border payment between Singapore and the United States, using tokenized deposits routed through Swift’s Digital Ledger. The transaction was settled within minutes, positioning blockchain-enabled payment rails as a potential solution to the long delays and limited operating hours associated with conventional cross-border banking workflows.
DBS said it finalized the transfer using tokenized deposits on Swift’s system, enabling activity outside standard banking schedules. The group called the speed of settlement a “significant improvement,” contrasting it with the industry norm—often up to two business days—for traditional cross-border transfers.
Key takeaways
DBS and Citi executed a Singapore-to-US cross-border payment over the weekend using tokenized deposits on Swift’s Digital Ledger.
Settlement reportedly took minutes, improving on typical traditional cross-border timelines of up to two business days.
The test highlights how major banks are experimenting with blockchain-based messaging/settlement infrastructure while keeping deposits within regulated banking channels.
It builds on earlier Swift-led pilots involving other large banks, including HSBC and Standard Chartered.
Citi is also pursuing a separate roadmap for tokenized deposit networks via The Clearing House, with plans discussed for 2027.
Weekend settlement becomes the latest proof point for tokenized rails
The DBS-Citi payment underscores a practical problem tokenization aims to address: cross-border transfers often remain bound by banking hours and operational processes that can stretch timelines well beyond a single business day. By running the transaction through Swift’s Digital Ledger and using tokenized deposits, the banks were able to complete the payment during a weekend—when many traditional settlement and processing paths are less active.
According to DBS’s announcement, the workflow relies on tokenized deposits rather than a full move to cryptocurrency custody or retail-style blockchain transfers. That distinction matters for investors and market participants watching these initiatives: it signals the direction large institutions are taking—using blockchain-style settlement mechanics to accelerate payment completion while preserving deposit-based structures familiar to regulated banking systems.
DBS emphasized that the deposit was finalized in minutes, framing it as a notable improvement over the “as long as two business days” timeframe often experienced in traditional cross-border channels. For banks and corporates alike, reducing idle time between initiation and settlement can improve cash management and operational efficiency, especially when payments are time-sensitive.
Swift’s Digital Ledger pilots: from readiness to expanding bank participation
This latest settlement follows earlier milestones tied to Swift’s push into tokenized deposits. In August, Standard Chartered and HSBC completed what was described as the first live tokenized cross-border transaction on Swift’s blockchain ledger.
Before that, Swift said its blockchain-based ledger was ready for initial use and that it was preparing to pilot tokenized cross-border payments with 17 major banks. In July, reporting noted that the pilot group included institutions such as Citi and DBS, alongside HSBC, BNP Paribas, UBS, ANZ, and Standard Chartered. Earlier coverage also tied the effort to Swift’s broader strategy for modernizing financial messaging and settlement paths.
What’s notable in the DBS-Citi weekend test is the maturity implied by moving beyond pilot-style milestones toward transactions that address real-world timing constraints. If weekend settlement becomes repeatable at scale, it could change how banks and payment operators think about cut-off times and settlement certainty for international transfers.
Citi’s parallel plan for a tokenized deposit network
DBS’s transaction also arrives amid other institution-level roadmaps for tokenized deposit infrastructure. Citi CEO David Watson, as reported by The Wall Street Journal, discussed a separate initiative in which a group of major US banks—including Citi—aim to launch a tokenized deposit network in the first half of 2027.
Watson linked the effort to The Clearing House, the US payments and clearing operator owned by banks. This suggests the industry is not placing all its bets on a single technology path. Instead, it appears to be building multiple layers: one focused on interoperable cross-border messaging and settlement, and another focused on domestic deposit token networks designed for broader interbank transfer capabilities.
For readers tracking the direction of crypto-adjacent finance, the coexistence of these efforts is important. Swift’s Digital Ledger work centers on cross-border settlement mechanics through a messaging network, while the Clearing House plan points toward a more US-centric network of tokenized deposits. Together, they reflect how large institutions may pursue both interoperability and network effects as they move from prototypes to operational systems.
Ongoing collaboration between major banks on tokenization frameworks
The industry momentum also includes collaboration frameworks between banks aimed at establishing compatibility across deposit token ecosystems. In November 2025, reporting highlighted that DBS and JPMorgan unveiled plans to develop a blockchain-based tokenization framework enabling onchain transfers between their deposit token environments, with the stated goal of moving toward an industry standard for cross-bank payments.
While these announcements do not guarantee full interoperability across all banks or across different tokenization platforms, they do indicate a shared theme: large financial institutions see tokenization as a way to reduce friction in transfers without necessarily replacing deposits with entirely new asset classes. The closer the industry gets to standardized frameworks, the easier it becomes for participants to connect systems and reduce settlement bottlenecks.
DBS’s Monday announcement tied the weekend transaction directly to the benefits of 24/7 settlement ability, reinforcing the idea that the value proposition is operational rather than speculative.
What to watch next
As Swift and major banks move from pilot milestones to repeatable live usage, the key question for the market is whether tokenized cross-border payments can sustain faster settlement reliably at scale—especially across weekends and holiday periods—while aligning with longer-term plans for tokenized deposit networks. The next updates from banks and Swift will likely focus on throughput, operational controls, and whether improvements in minutes translate into broader day-to-day savings for international payments.
This article was originally published as Citi and DBS Execute First Tokenized Cross-Border Deposits via SWIFT on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele has rejected reports that the country transferred its Strategic Bitcoin Reserve to a private operator as part of its agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The denial came after the IMF reached a preliminary agreement with El Salvador that will unlock $140 million in additional funding under a broader $1.4 billion financing program.
Bukele said the transaction involved shares in the government’s Chivo wallet rather than the country’s Bitcoin holdings, pushing back against reports that the reserve itself had been handed to a private entity.
Key Takeaways
Nayib Bukele says El Salvador did not transfer its Strategic Bitcoin Reserve to a private operator.
The president said only shares in the Chivo wallet were transferred.
The IMF has agreed to release another $140 million as part of its $1.4 billion program with El Salvador.
The country’s Bitcoin holdings have risen from about 6,224 BTC in June 2025 to more than 7,764 BTC.
The IMF says recent growth in the reserve came from private donations rather than government spending.
Bukele Draws a Line Between Chivo and El Salvador’s Bitcoin Reserve
Bukele responded to reports about the transfer on Friday, saying the government had not handed over control of its strategic Bitcoin holdings.
“The only thing that was transferred were Chivo’s shares … and NOT the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” Bukele said in a post on X.
Normalmente no contesto directamente a tanta noticia falsa, pero esta me pareció un buen ejemplo de cómo estos “periodistas” y medios de comunicación MIENTEN descaradamente a sus lectores.
Lean este tuit, que ASEGURA que El Salvador ha transferido sus reservas de bitcoin a un… https://t.co/Y9OdnNpKal
— Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele) September 4, 2026
The comments came shortly after the IMF outlined changes involving El Salvador’s state-backed Chivo wallet. The Fund said majority ownership and operational control of the wallet had been transferred to a private operator.
The government, however, continues to hold a minority stake and retains responsibility for the custody of customer assets.
The distinction is important because Chivo and the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve represent separate parts of El Salvador’s cryptocurrency strategy.
El Salvador’s Bitcoin Holdings Continue to Attract Attention
El Salvador became the first country to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender in 2021, introducing it alongside the US dollar. The policy later became a central issue in negotiations with the IMF.
The government removed Bitcoin’s legal tender status in January as part of the conditions surrounding the IMF program.
Despite the policy changes, El Salvador’s Bitcoin holdings have continued to increase. The country’s reserve stood at around 6,224 BTC at the end of June 2025 and has since risen to more than 7,764 BTC.
That represents an increase of roughly 1,540 BTC.
The size of the increase has raised questions because Salvadoran officials have continued to promote the idea of adding one Bitcoin per day to the national reserve.
IMF Says Recent Bitcoin Growth Came From Donations
Meanwhile, the
This article was originally published as President Bukele Rejects Claims El Salvador Transferred Bitcoin Reserves To Private Entity on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin sidechain Liquid Network has paused operations after supposed white-hat hackers withdrew 4,000 BTC, worth around $320 million, from its federation wallet.
White-hat hackers are cybersecurity professionals who detect vulnerabilities in software, hardware, or networks and warn organizations about potential security risks.
Liquid Network Pauses Operations
The Bitcoin sidechain released a statement on X confirming the incident, adding that it was working with Blockstream, its technology partner, to contact the hackers in question through an on-chain signed message. However, Liquid Network has not yet identified the hackers or disclosed whether the funds would be returned.
“We are aware of a security incident on @Liquid_BTC. Purported white-hat hackers have withdrawn ~4,000 BTC (~$320 million) from the Liquid Federation wallet. The @Blockstream team is working on contacting them on-chain with a signed message.”
The hackers withdrew around 95% of Liquid’s Bitcoin reserves. The sidechain’s Bitcoin reserves stood at 4,200 BTC before the security incident.
Incident Details
The statement also explained how the Bitcoin was withdrawn. According to Liquid Network, the hackers withdrew the funds using the SideSwap PAK, or Peg-Out Authorization Key. The statement clarified that the network was not compromised, but it did not disclose the vulnerability that allowed the white-hat hackers to withdraw the BTC. Following the withdrawal, the hackers reached out to the Liquid Network in an on-chain message linked to the transaction.
“We are whitehats. Contact us on-chain.”
It also notified cryptocurrency exchanges, with deposits and withdrawals of LBTC, the sidechain’s Bitcoin-backed token, already suspended. The protocol also temporarily disabled bridge nodes to prevent new transactions from being submitted to the network.
“Exchanges have been notified and have already paused (or will pause) LBTC deposits and withdrawals. Other Liquid assets such as USDT, DePix, and RWAs are unaffected by this security incident. Bridge nodes have been temporarily disabled, so no new transactions can be submitted to the network. Effectively, the Liquid sidechain is paused until this issue is resolved.”
The Liquid Network warned that wallets may also be impacted, but said the incident did not affect other assets such as USDT, DePix, and real-world assets.
Crypto Security Back In Focus
Liquid Network is a Bitcoin sidechain facilitating faster and confidential transfers. It also enables the issuance of digital assets. BTC in Liquid is represented by the LBTC token, with the underlying asset secured by federation operators. The protocol is used by several platforms for quick settlements, primarily because the primary Bitcoin blockchain often faces network congestion.
The incident, part of a string of hacks that have hit the industry, has put crypto security back in the spotlight. A Crypto.com-linked lending platform was drained of $6 million by a hacker on August 31. The recent Coldcard exploit also shook the foundations of digital asset custody, raising serious questions about cold wallets, considered the safest way to store crypto.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as Liquid Network Pauses Operations After Supposed White-Hat Hackers Withdraw 4,000 BTC on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

DBS and Citi have completed the first tokenized cross-border payment between Singapore and the United States over a blockchain-based settlement rail, marking a concrete step in banks’ shift from traditional transfer timelines toward near-instant processing.
The transaction was executed on Saturday using tokenized deposits via the Swift Digital Ledger, according to DBS, which said the deposit was finalized in minutes—an improvement over the “as long as two business days” timeline typical of conventional cross-border transfers. DBS made the announcement on Monday.
Key takeaways
DBS and Citi completed a Singapore-to-US cross-border payment using tokenized deposits on the Swift Digital Ledger.
DBS said the deposit was settled in minutes, contrasting with traditional cross-border transfers that can take up to two business days.
The experiment highlights how major banks are testing blockchain rails while still operating within banking deposit structures.
Swift’s blockchain ledger work is moving from pilots toward broader operational use, following earlier live demonstrations.
Tokenized deposits on Swift’s digital ledger go live
DBS described the weekend transfer as a landmark milestone for cross-border payments, not only because it used the Swift Digital Ledger, but also because it relied on tokenized deposits rather than switching to a fully crypto-native model.
Under this approach, banks can represent deposit value as tokens while keeping the transaction rooted in regulated banking balance sheets. DBS framed the speed of finalization as a key differentiator: settling within minutes rather than waiting through banking-day cutoffs and correspondent processes that often slow down international payments.
A shift from pilots to operational momentum
This development sits within a longer sequence of Swift blockchain efforts. In August, Standard Chartered and HSBC became the first banks to complete a live tokenized cross-border transaction using Swift’s blockchain ledger—showing that the concept could work outside a closed test environment.
Earlier, Swift said its blockchain-based ledger was ready for initial use and that it was preparing to pilot tokenized cross-border payments with 17 major banks. The pilot group included Citi, DBS, HSBC, BNP Paribas, UBS, ANZ, and Standard Chartered, as noted in reporting on Swift’s preparations.
With DBS and Citi now completing the Singapore-US leg using the ledger, the focus appears to be moving from feasibility and interbank coordination toward repeatable processing that can be integrated into existing banking workflows.
Why keeping deposits “inside” banking matters
While blockchain rails are often discussed in the context of digital assets, the direction implied by DBS’s framing is different: tokenization here is being used to streamline settlement while preserving familiar deposit mechanics.
That matters for multiple reasons. First, it can reduce friction for counterparties that are more comfortable with the compliance and operational controls already embedded in deposit-based systems. Second, it provides a path to faster settlement without necessarily requiring participants to hold or transfer tokens as their primary payment method for everyday banking.
In other words, these transactions suggest a hybrid model: blockchain for settlement efficiency, traditional deposits for value custody and regulated banking integration.
Plans for broader tokenized deposit networks
The weekend result also fits into plans for future deposit token infrastructure in the United States. In June, The Wall Street Journal reported that Citi and other large US banks plan to launch a separate tokenized deposit network in the first half of 2027, operated by The Clearing House. The WSJ report cites David Watson, CEO of the bank-owned payments operator, in connection with the initiative.
Separately, DBS and JPMorgan have also outlined longer-term work. In November 2025, Cointelegraph reported that the two banks revealed plans to develop a blockchain-based tokenization framework aimed at enabling onchain transfers between their respective deposit token ecosystems and potentially setting an industry standard for cross-bank payments.
Taken together, these efforts point toward an emerging competitive and collaborative landscape: banks testing tokenized rails in production while simultaneously planning next-generation network designs that could expand interoperability beyond individual bilateral relationships.
Looking ahead, market participants will likely watch whether speed improvements translate into consistent, scalable settlement performance across more corridors, and whether Swift-led ledger usage broadens beyond early pairs like DBS-Citi—especially as parallel tokenized deposit network plans move from announcements toward delivery.
This article was originally published as Citi and DBS Set Milestone with First Tokenized Cross-Border Deposit via Swift on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) has proposed a temporary pause on new registrations for payment-system operators as part of a broader effort to tighten integrity and risk controls around payments connected to virtual asset service providers (VASPs). In a draft circular released for consultation, the central bank also outlined stricter requirements for BSP-supervised institutions when merchant acquisition involves regulated crypto-related businesses.
While the proposal is still subject to feedback and finalization, it signals the regulator’s intent to slow down parts of the payment authorization pipeline and to tighten how regulated VASPs are routed into payments and settlement processes in the Philippines.
Key takeaways
The BSP proposes suspending acceptance and processing of new applications for operators of payment systems for 12 months, pending a “holistic review” of its licensing framework.
Applications already submitted before the suspension would continue to be assessed, but BSP would not approve or deny them until the pause ends.
BSP-supervised merchants and acquiring services would need to structure arrangements with regulated VASPs through direct merchant relationships subject to enhanced due diligence and monitoring.
The draft expands the control net to VASPs that are licensed, registered, or authorized by the BSP, the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), or another competent authority.
If finalized, the draft circular would take effect 15 days after publication, though the BSP is currently collecting public comments.
12-month pause on new payment-system operator registrations
In the draft circular, the BSP states that it will suspend acceptance and processing of applications from entities seeking to operate payment systems. The regulator said the move is intended to allow a “holistic review” of its taxonomy and licensing framework for payment-system oversight.
Importantly, the suspension would not necessarily erase earlier applications. According to the draft, applications submitted before the pause could still be evaluated, but the BSP would delay any approval or denial decision until the 12-month review period concludes.
The proposal also introduces a practical constraint for market participants: entities would be barred from beginning activities that require payment-system operator registration unless the BSP authorizes them through other channels. That means applicants and related service providers may face timing uncertainty even if they have already passed initial steps in the process.
Merchant acquisition rules tightened when VASPs are involved
Beyond the operator-registration pause, the BSP’s draft circular focuses on how payments are structured when BSP-supervised institutions offer merchant acquisition services that involve VASPs. The central bank proposes that such relationships must be handled through direct merchant arrangements with regulated VASPs.
Under the draft, these arrangements would come with enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring obligations. The BSP also points to additional risk-based controls, including transaction and settlement limits, aimed at reducing exposure in payment flows linked to virtual asset activity.
For investors, traders, and payment-adjacent businesses, this shift matters because it targets the mechanics of how crypto-related counterparties enter payment rails—not just licensing status. If implemented as drafted, it could affect onboarding processes for merchants, payment service providers, and any intermediary layers that currently sit between VASPs and merchants.
Which crypto firms are covered by the controls
The BSP’s enhanced requirements would apply to VASPs, but the draft clarifies that the obligation is tied to entities that are licensed, registered, or authorized by the BSP, the Philippine SEC, or another authority. In other words, the rules appear designed for counterparties that have already obtained some form of regulatory recognition, rather than treating all crypto activity as equivalent.
The circular also places VASPs in the broader category of businesses subject to scrutiny under the BSP’s integrity and control approach. The draft lists VASPs alongside other sectors such as gambling businesses, gaming providers, adult-oriented businesses, and money service businesses—suggesting a risk-assessment framework that groups activities by perceived operational and compliance sensitivity rather than by industry alone.
The classification has implications for compliance programs: institutions providing merchant acquisition will likely need to revisit their vendor and counterparty screening policies and ensure they can demonstrate heightened controls for the relevant categories.
Timing, consultation, and what to watch next
The draft circular would take effect 15 days after publication if finalized. The BSP is currently accepting feedback, and Cointelegraph reported reaching out to the BSP for more information without receiving a response before publication.
Readers and market participants should watch for two outcomes as the consultation progresses. First, whether the BSP’s 12-month pause remains unchanged in scope or duration, and whether it introduces clarifications on how pending applications will be handled during the review window. Second, how the final text implements the direct merchant-arrangement requirement and what “enhanced due diligence,” monitoring, and limits will look like in practice for BSP-supervised institutions working with regulated VASPs.
This article was originally published as Philippines Considers Pausing Payment Operator Registration, Tightens VASP Checks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Harmony, the Ethereum-compatible blockchain protocol, has outlined a plan to sunset its own network and migrate its native ONE token to Ethereum. The proposal—seven years after Harmony launched its mainnet—calls for a final blockchain snapshot, an ERC-20 ONE token issuance on Ethereum, and coordinated steps for validators and users to wind down activity on the original chain.
Harmony says the move is intended to be orderly and non-binding, with a migration built around on-chain balances at the final block. However, the proposal leaves key execution details unclear—most notably whether the plan will be formally submitted through Harmony’s validator-led governance process and when the last block would be produced.
Key takeaways
Harmony proposes a network sunset after taking a final snapshot and issuing ERC-20 ONE tokens on Ethereum to the same addresses.
Balances would be recorded automatically at the final block, with ERC-20 ONE airdropped to those addresses on Ethereum without requiring users to file claims.
Governance and timing are not fully specified: Harmony describes the proposal as non-binding and does not state when the final block would be produced.
Validators would be offered options to stop nodes, continue as governors, or join a new AI-video initiative.
Certain on-chain components—such as multisig safes, liquidity pools, and deployed applications—cannot be migrated, and users are told to exit smart contract positions before Sept. 10.
A proposed migration from Harmony to Ethereum
In a post on Sunday, Harmony said it is considering taking a final network snapshot and then migrating ONE to Ethereum as an ERC-20 token. According to the proposal, validators and participants would be able to select different paths: shut down their nodes, remain involved as governors, or move into Harmony’s newly described AI-video initiative.
Harmony emphasized that the proposal is non-binding and did not specify when the “final block” would be produced. It also did not confirm whether the shutdown itself would be brought under Harmony’s validator governance workflow.
Under Harmony’s published governance framework, elected validators can create proposals, while unelected validators are also able to vote with voting power weighted by total stake. A proposal requires 51% of total stake weight to participate and then 66.7% support after a seven-day introduction and a 14-day voting period. (Harmony’s proposal does not yet clarify whether it will follow this full procedure before execution.)
How the ONE token migration would work
The core of Harmony’s plan is the handling of ONE balances. Harmony states that all ONE balances would be recorded at the network’s final block and that new ERC-20 ONE tokens would be airdropped to the same addresses on Ethereum.
Harmony’s snapshot coverage is broad. It says the snapshot would include wallets, staking delegations, validator rewards, smart contracts, and centralized exchanges. In addition, Harmony states that there would be no claims process—meaning eligible balances should be reflected via the snapshot and subsequent airdrop rather than requiring users to take action to register.
Still, the migration is not presented as a full “lift and shift” of the Harmony ecosystem. Harmony cautioned that multisig safes, liquidity pools, and on-chain applications cannot be migrated. To reduce the risk of stranded positions, Harmony urged users to exit smart contracts before Sept. 10.
Harmony also suggests the shutdown cadence would include validator action around that date. It said validators may begin shutting down on Sept. 10, and pointed to a compensation pool of $1.372 million set aside to reimburse validators that stop on time, retain their stakes, and agree to serve as governors.
Unfinished details—and why they matter
The proposal’s most consequential uncertainty is not the token mechanics, but the network wind-down itself. Harmony did not provide a specific date for when the last block would be produced, nor did it make clear whether the shutdown plan would be submitted through governance as defined by the network’s rules.
For holders and market participants, those gaps determine how much operational risk remains during the transition. If a final snapshot is taken quickly without full governance clarity, exchanges, bridges, custody providers, and liquidity venues may face compressed timelines to support the migration—particularly if they must reconcile Harmony-origin ONE holdings with Ethereum-based ERC-20 balances.
Harmony’s snapshot approach—covering exchanges and staking delegations—appears designed to reduce fragmentation. But the stated inability to migrate liquidity pools and decentralized applications could still produce a mismatch between token availability and usable functionality on Ethereum. In practice, users may receive ERC-20 ONE yet still be unable to access the same on-chain services that previously depended on Harmony’s smart contract environment.
Context: the plan follows an exploit and proposed rollback
The sunset proposal arrives less than four weeks after a serious Harmony exploit that resulted in forged ONE tokens. Earlier coverage noted that the incident prompted Harmony to consider a rollback to reverse unauthorized minting activity, a path that—if implemented—would have wiped more than 109,000 transactions.
On Aug. 12, Harmony said it was considering a rollback after reports that an attacker had minted nearly 4 billion unauthorized ONE, claimed to be equivalent to roughly 26% of the supply. An outside account further alleged that about 2.8 billion tokens had reached exchanges, though Harmony had not confirmed those figures at the time.
On Aug. 17, Harmony said it planned to revert the blockchain to an Aug. 11 checkpoint. It reported that the rollback would discard 109,126 regular transactions and 315 staking transactions, and stated investigators had traced nearly all forged tokens to wallets or service boundaries while working with exchanges, bridges, and law enforcement.
Harmony’s current proposal marks a sharper pivot: instead of focusing solely on restoring the chain after an exploit, it suggests closing down the independent Harmony network altogether and relocating the token to Ethereum. That shift matters because it changes the recovery narrative from “repair and continue” to “migrate and end,” potentially leaving users to transition not only balances, but also the broader ecosystem footprint.
Whether Harmony’s governance process ultimately ratifies the plan will be the next key question for anyone holding ONE, running validator infrastructure, or depending on Harmony-based applications. If the network proceeds, market participants will likely watch for the details Harmony has not yet specified—especially the governance timeline, the exact block date for the snapshot, and how exchanges and custodians coordinate ERC-20 token support on Ethereum.
This article was originally published as Harmony Proposes Halting Layer-1 and Moving ONE to Ethereum on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US-based spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $987 million in net inflows last week, a clear indicator that institutional demand for the asset has recovered. Last week’s inflows have extended the positive flows to three straight weeks.
Spot Ethereum ETFs also extended their inflow streak, recording $218.4 million in net inflows last week.
Spot Bitcoin ETFs Record Third Week Of Positive Inflows
Spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $987 million in net inflows last week, extending their positive streak to three straight weeks thanks to returning institutional demand. An analysis of CoinGlass ETF data shows the investment products starting the previous week with a $216.70 million inflow, followed by $236.50 million in outflows on Tuesday. The ETFs returned to positive territory on Wednesday with $101.10 million in net inflows, $730.80 million on Thursday, and $174.60 million on Friday.
BlackRock’s IBIT led weekly inflows with $691.5 million, followed by FBTC with $138.6 million, and ARKB with $137.7 million. Weekly inflows rose from $924.5 million a week prior. The daily trading volume is currently at $386.56 million, and daily total net inflows at $174.60 million. Daily trading volume for last week stood at $14.5 billion, significantly lower than the $19 billion recorded a week prior.
Robust August For Spot Bitcoin And Ethereum ETFs
Spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs performed well in August, bringing in substantial inflows. Spot Bitcoin ETFs pulled in $3.52 billion in monthly net inflows, their best performance since September 2025. Meanwhile, Spot Ethereum ETFs recorded $1.85 billion in monthly net inflows, the strongest since August 2025. Dominick John, an analyst at Zeus Research, said returning institutional capital has created genuine demand for BTC, pushing the price higher.
“Sustained ETF inflows suggest institutional capital is steadily rebuilding exposure to bitcoin, creating genuine spot demand rather than relying on leverage-driven speculation.”
Min Jung, research associate at Presto Research, called the positive price action a “catch-up trade,” adding that renewed ETF inflows indicate strong institutional demand.
Bitcoin Price Action
Meanwhile, Bitcoin finds itself back below $80,000 after reaching a high of $82,283 on Thursday. The flagship cryptocurrency lost some momentum after hitting resistance around the $82,000 level. It retreated on Friday, dropping to a low of $78,626 before settling at $79,675. Price action was positive over the weekend as BTC reclaimed $80,000, closing Sunday at $80,339. However, selling pressure returned on Monday, with the price down 1.29% at $79,318.
Despite BTC’s failure to push higher, it retains a near-term bullish bias, with the price above the 50-day, 100-day, and 200-day SMAs. The Relative Strength Index (RSI) is above 60, indicating strong buying pressure, but not at overbought levels. However, the MACD has turned negative, hinting at waning momentum.
According to John, BTC must hold $80,000, adding that the next major move depends on upcoming jobless claims and CPI data, and how the Fed reacts.
“Holding $80,000 keeps the structure constructive. BTC will continue grinding higher toward $82,000-$85,000, but the next move will likely be macro-driven.”
BTC has support around the 200-day EMA at $72,749. This level is reinforced by support at the 50-day EMA ($72,100) and the 100-day EMA ($70,274).
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin ETFs Record $987 Million In Inflows As Institutional Demand Returns on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A British man has recovered 61 Bitcoin worth approximately £3.3 million after spending 12 years trying to regain access to cryptocurrency he feared was gone forever.
Chris, who has chosen not to reveal his full name, bought the Bitcoin for around £1,500 in 2011 through Britcoin, one of the UK’s early cryptocurrency exchanges. The platform was later renamed Intersango before eventually shutting down, leaving customers struggling to access their funds.
At the time his account became inaccessible, Chris’s Bitcoin was worth only around £4,000. More than a decade later, the same holdings had become a multimillion-pound fortune.
Key Takeaways
A British investor has recovered 61 BTC worth about £3.3 million after losing access to the coins for 12 years.
Chris originally invested approximately £1,500 in Bitcoin through Britcoin in 2011.
His funds became inaccessible after Intersango, the exchange that later operated Britcoin, shut down.
Lawyers helped establish his ownership using historical financial records and court documents.
Chris plans to use some of the recovered Bitcoin to buy a larger home while keeping the remainder invested.
A £1,500 Bitcoin Investment Becomes a £3.3 Million Fortune
Chris’s Bitcoin journey began in 2011 after a friend persuaded him that the emerging cryptocurrency could become a major investment.
He cautiously purchased approximately £1,500 worth of Bitcoin when the asset was trading at only a few pounds per coin. His holdings subsequently increased in value, reaching around £4,000 before problems at the exchange left him unable to access the account.
Intersango began experiencing difficulties in late 2012, eventually stopping certain trading operations. By early 2014, its website had disappeared and customers were unable to withdraw their assets.
Chris tried to recover his Bitcoin but was unsuccessful. As the years passed, he eventually stopped tracking Bitcoin’s price because he believed the cryptocurrency was no longer recoverable.
“It was a punch in the stomach watching Bitcoin go up and up. After a while, I stopped watching it because I thought: ‘there’s no point, it’s lost… I had written them off.’” He stated.
A Missed Opportunity in 2018
Ironically, Chris may have had an opportunity to recover the funds several years earlier.
In 2018, emails were sent to him by two of Intersango’s co-founders asking former customers to make contact. However, Chris believed the messages were attempts to scam him and deleted them.
The Bitcoin remained out of his reach for several more years.
It was only in January 2026, following encouragement from his wife, that Chris decided to investigate the matter again. He contacted CEL Solicitors, which specializes in cryptocurrency recovery and financial litigation.
Lawyers Reconstruct a 12-Year-Old Claim
Recovering the Bitcoin required more than simply identifying the old account. Chris needed to demonstrate that the cryptocurrency belonged to him. Lawyers therefore had to gather historical bank statements showing his original purchase, along with court documents connected to proceedings in the United States.
Ryan Sweetnam, director of financial litigation at CEL Solicitors, said the legal process ultimately resulted in negotiations rather than a separate trial.
“We had to get all the court documents sorted for American courts. And so that took quite a long time. But in the end, you could probably describe the whole process as negotiation rather than having to get in front of a judge to get this one user back his funds.” Said Ryan
The effort eventually paid off. On May 28, 2026, Chris received all 61 BTC, which were valued at roughly £3.3 million.
Chris Plans to Keep Some Bitcoin
That said, the recovery has given Chris options that would have been impossible when he first made the investment. He noted he intends to sell part of the cryptocurrency to purchase a larger home and provide additional support for his family. He plans to retain the rest of his Bitcoin rather than immediately converting the entire fortune into cash.
This article was originally published as British Man Reclaims £3.3 Million in Bitcoin After 12-Year Fight to Recover Lost Wallet on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin sidechain Liquid has paused operations after the federation that governs the network lost roughly 4,000 BTC worth about $320 million to actors who claimed they were “white-hat” hackers. Liquid’s operators disabled bridge nodes and moved to stop L-BTC deposits and withdrawals, while stressing that other Liquid-issued assets were not affected.
Blockstream, the technology provider behind Liquid, said it corresponded with the actors through signed on-chain messages. The actors told Blockstream they would return most of the Bitcoin after the underlying vulnerability was fixed and every node installed the patch—though, at the time of publication, the funds had not yet been returned.
Key takeaways
Liquid disabled bridge nodes and halted new bridge transactions after about 4,000 BTC was withdrawn from its federation wallet.
L-BTC deposit and withdrawal processing was halted or expected to be halted by exchanges, while other Liquid-issued assets reportedly continued without interruption.
About 95% of the federation wallet’s roughly 4,200 BTC balance was reportedly moved to the actors.
Blockstream says it communicated with the actors via signed on-chain messages, and the actors promised a return after patching and node updates.
Liquid pauses bridging as federation funds are pulled
Liquid said on Sunday that bridge nodes were disabled, preventing new transactions. It also indicated that exchanges were either halting or preparing to halt L-BTC deposits and withdrawals, reflecting the sidechain’s need to maintain custody and accounting for its pegged token.
Liquid emphasized that other assets issued on the network—such as USDT, DePix, and tokenized real-world assets—were unaffected by the incident. That distinction matters for users holding non-LBTC assets on Liquid, because it suggests the disruption is centered on the bridge and federation-controlled Bitcoin backing rather than on a broad contract or issuance failure across the sidechain.
The federation wallet withdrawal is described as roughly 95% of the federation’s approximately 4,200 BTC balance. Liquid uses Bitcoin held by its federation to back L-BTC issued on the sidechain. As a result, most of the Bitcoin backing remained under the actors’ control until it is returned, creating a direct liquidity and settlement problem for L-BTC as bridging is paused.
Negotiations via on-chain contact and PGP messaging
According to Blockstream’s reported engagement with the actors, communication took place through signed on-chain messages. Public details of the exchange were later compiled by Samson Mow, CEO of Jan3 and a former Blockstream chief strategy officer, who pointed to a timeline embedded in Bitcoin transactions.
In that account, the actors identified themselves as “white hats” and requested on-chain contact at around 11:30 a.m. Pacific time. Blockstream reportedly responded about an hour later, directing them to its security email. It then allegedly sent a PGP-encrypted message after further correspondence.
Later, the actors reportedly asked whether they could return most of the Bitcoin to a Blockstream address. They also demanded that the vulnerability be fixed and that every node update before the return transfer would occur. Blockstream’s reply—described as acknowledging the address question—was presented publicly by Mow, with the implication that Blockstream agreed to receive the funds at the designated location while also treating patching as a key prerequisite.
By one account relayed publicly, no additional messages were seen after roughly 9:12 p.m. Pacific time, and at the time of writing, the Bitcoin had not been returned.
Technical attribution: Elements bug vs. exchange systems
One issue raised in public discussion is where the exploited flaw originated. SideSwap—connected to peg-out operations—said the withdrawal went through its peg-out service as a customer order using its Peg-out Authorization Key (PAK), but it asserted that the key itself was not compromised.
SideSwap added that the L-BTC used in the transaction traced back to a bug in Elements, the open-source software underlying Liquid, rather than originating from SideSwap’s own systems. For participants watching the fallout, this distinction can affect how quickly exchanges and service providers can operationally reassure users: a failure rooted in underlying Liquid/Elements code generally requires broad patching at the protocol layer, while a failure tied to an exchange-specific signing component would typically be resolved by rotating or securing that component.
Liquid’s decision to disable bridge nodes and coordinate L-BTC deposit/withdrawal freezes aligns with the practical need to stop flows that depend on the federation-controlled Bitcoin backing while technical remediation is verified across the network.
What investors and users should monitor next
The immediate risk from this event is settlement and liquidity disruption for L-BTC, not necessarily for every Liquid-issued token. The key question now is whether the actors follow through on their stated plan to return most of the Bitcoin once a patch is confirmed and every node has updated.
Readers should watch for confirmations from Liquid and Blockstream that the patch is deployed across all nodes, that bridge nodes are restored, and—most importantly—that the returned funds actually reach the federation wallet. Until then, the sidechain’s peg mechanics remain constrained by the absence of the withdrawn Bitcoin backing.
This article was originally published as Liquid Sidechain Halts After ‘White Hats’ Allegedly Move $320M BTC on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Harmony is moving toward a full shutdown of its blockchain and a migration of its ONE token to Ethereum, according to a proposal shared by the network. The plan would culminate in a final network snapshot, followed by an airdrop of ERC-20 ONE tokens to the same addresses on Ethereum and steps to transition validator operations.
The announcement arrives after a recent Harmony exploit that involved the minting of unauthorized ONE tokens and raised the prospect of a rollback. With the latest proposal, Harmony’s approach appears to shift from repairing a compromised chain to ending the network as a standalone platform.
Key takeaways
Harmony’s proposal targets a final block snapshot and issuance of ERC-20 ONE tokens on Ethereum, with holders receiving the new tokens to the same addresses.
Harmony says the snapshot would include wallets, staking delegations, validator rewards, smart contracts, and centralized exchanges, with “no claims required.”
The migration is not presented as binding, and the proposal does not specify when the final block would be produced or whether shutdown timing depends on a full on-chain governance vote.
Users are told to exit smart contracts before Sept. 10 because “multisig safes, liquidity pools and onchain applications cannot be migrated.”
Validators may choose to stop nodes, remain as governors, or join Harmony’s “AI-video initiative,” with a $1.372 million pool set aside for compensation for validators who exit on time and agree to serve as governors.
A planned end to Harmony’s mainnet—followed by an ERC-20 migration
In its Sunday proposal, Harmony outlined a transition designed to preserve token balances while discontinuing the underlying chain. The network stated it would take a final network snapshot and then issue ERC-20 ONE tokens on Ethereum, allocating the new tokens to the same addresses that held ONE at the time of the final block.
Harmony further described the snapshot scope as broad. It would record ONE balances across wallets, staking delegations, validator rewards, smart contracts, and centralized exchanges. The network also emphasized that holders would not need to take action to receive the new ERC-20 tokens—an important detail for retail participants and custodians alike.
Still, the proposal draws a clear boundary around what can and cannot be migrated. Harmony said multisig safes, liquidity pools, and onchain applications cannot be transferred, warning participants to unwind any smart-contract positions before Sept. 10. That requirement effectively shifts risk management onto users and protocol operators, particularly where liquidity or contract-based funds are involved.
Validator options, governance mechanics, and the open question of timing
Harmony’s transition plan is centered on validator decisions. The network said validators would receive options: stop their nodes, continue operating as governors, or participate in Harmony’s new AI-video initiative.
Harmony also referenced a governance framework consistent with its published network governance rules. According to Harmony’s governance documentation, elected validators can create proposals, while unelected validators may vote with voting power proportional to total stake. Under those rules, a proposal must reach participation threshold first: 51% of total stake weight must participate. Then it requires 66.7% support after a seven-day introduction period and a 14-day voting period.
However, Harmony described the Sunday proposal itself as “non-binding,” and it did not clarify whether the shutdown is guaranteed to follow the full validator-governance voting cycle or how precisely the final block timing would be determined. For investors and market participants, that uncertainty matters: the practical mechanics of when balances become fixed for snapshot purposes—and how orderly exchanges and custodians can coordinate—depend on the final execution plan.
Harmony also mentioned a compensation pool of $1.372 million for validators who shut down on time, keep their stakes, and agree to serve as governors. That figure indicates Harmony expects to retain some validator participation even after the main chain ceases producing blocks, but it does not specify how long governors would remain active in that role.
Recent exploit pressures: from rollback plans to a system-wide exit
The migration proposal comes less than four weeks after an exploit that created forged ONE tokens. Harmony said earlier it was considering a rollback after reports that an attacker had minted nearly 4 billion unauthorized ONE, an amount characterized at the time as roughly 26% of the token supply. Harmony later said it planned to revert the blockchain to an Aug. 11 checkpoint, discarding 109,126 regular transactions and 315 staking transactions.
According to Harmony’s earlier statements, investigators traced nearly all forged tokens to specific wallets or service boundaries and said they were working with exchanges, bridges, and law enforcement. While the rollback narrative focused on restoring the chain by undoing affected transactions, the new proposal effectively reframes the endgame: rather than continuing to operate Harmony’s blockchain and maintain state updates, Harmony is proposing a migration that relocates token ownership onto Ethereum.
For holders, this is a meaningful shift. A rollback aims to correct the ledger while preserving the chain’s continuity; a shutdown-and-migrate approach focuses on stabilizing token ownership by anchoring balances to an Ethereum-issued standard. The trade-off is that the ecosystem built atop Harmony—especially DeFi liquidity and onchain application state—may not survive in the same form because Harmony has said those components cannot be migrated.
What users should do before the September deadline
Harmony’s most urgent operational message is directed at smart-contract participants. By Sept. 10, Harmony urged users to exit all smart contracts, citing the inability to migrate multisig safes, liquidity pools, and onchain applications. That means users relying on staking-related smart-contract interactions, liquidity positions, or complex contract mechanisms may need to ensure they are fully withdrawn before migration-related execution begins.
While Harmony indicated that smart-contract-related ONE balances would be recorded at the final snapshot and ERC-20 tokens would be issued accordingly, the network’s warning suggests token balances alone may not capture the full value of positions that depend on liquidity pools or application-specific states. In other words, the migration can preserve ONE ownership, but it may not preserve the surrounding infrastructure in which ONE is locked or used.
Traders and long-term holders should also watch for how exchanges and custodians handle the ERC-20 distribution process. Harmony said the snapshot would include centralized exchange holdings, but the operational steps—such as whether exchanges require internal mapping from Harmony addresses to Ethereum accounts—are not detailed in the proposal text provided.
With Harmony moving toward an end-of-chain event and a token migration, market participants should track: whether validators ultimately ratify the shutdown through the governance thresholds described by Harmony’s framework, how Harmony confirms the snapshot and final block timing, and how DeFi and other onchain users unwind positions ahead of Sept. 10. The answers will determine how smoothly ONE holders can transition—and how much of the broader Harmony ecosystem can be meaningfully preserved.
This article was originally published as Harmony Suggests Closing L1, Moving ONE to Ethereum on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Liquid, the Bitcoin sidechain operated by Blockstream, has paused operations after actors who claim they are “white-hat” hackers withdrew roughly 4,000 BTC from Liquid’s federation wallet—an amount the report describes as worth about $320 million. The move has triggered a wider shutdown of bridge activity, with Liquid saying new transactions are currently blocked.
On Sunday, Liquid said it disabled bridge nodes, halting activity that would otherwise allow users to move funds between Bitcoin and Liquid’s network. Exchanges, meanwhile, were either already stopping deposits and withdrawals of L-BTC or preparing to do so, according to Liquid’s public statements.
Key takeaways
Liquid disabled bridge nodes after actors withdrew about 4,000 BTC from the federation wallet, leaving the sidechain in a paused state.
Liquid and Blockstream say they contacted the actors through signed on-chain messages seeking a remediation and coordinated return of funds.
Liquid estimates the withdrawn BTC represented about 95% of the wallet’s roughly 4,200 BTC balance at the time of the incident.
L-BTC bridge-related activity was stopped, while Liquid says other issued assets on the network—including USDT—were not affected.
SideSwap says its peg-out service processed a withdrawal order using its PAK and that the key was not compromised, attributing the source of the L-BTC to a bug in Elements.
Bridge nodes disabled as federation wallet is emptied
Liquid’s response centers on preventing further bridge transactions while the federation works through the situation. Liquid stated that bridge nodes were turned off, which stops new transactions from being created or relayed through the bridge.
The immediate market-facing impact was felt by custodians and exchanges supporting L-BTC. Liquid said exchanges had halted or were in the process of halting L-BTC deposits and withdrawals—effectively reducing the risk of users interacting with a bridge that is no longer operating normally.
Liquid said the seized Bitcoin amount was taken from its federation wallet. The report notes that the withdrawn BTC accounted for approximately 95% of a federation balance that was around 4,200 BTC prior to the incident.
On-chain messages and a demand to patch before funds return
Blockstream, Liquid’s technology provider, reportedly began contacting the actors directly using signed on-chain messages. Subsequent messages, as described in the reporting, show the actors telling Blockstream to patch the vulnerability and ensure that every node is updated before they would return most of the Bitcoin.
The actors also reportedly provided encrypted technical details to Blockstream. According to Galaxy Digital research head Alex Thorn, those details were shared through the same channel of communications.
As of the time of writing, the funds had not been returned, leaving the sidechain paused and raising an open question for Liquid users: even if the actors’ stated intent is to improve security, the operational downtime could persist until updates are verified across the network.
Other Liquid-issued assets reportedly unaffected
Liquid said other assets issued on the network were unaffected. That includes tokens and instruments such as USDT, DePix, and real-world assets (as referenced in the report). The sidechain’s pause appears focused on bridge functionality and the federation wallet state, rather than a broader halt of every on-chain activity.
For traders and integrators, this distinction matters. When a sidechain pauses because of bridge-layer issues, it can limit the ability to move assets in or out, but it may still allow certain on-network transfers—depending on the specific operational constraints put in place by the federation and bridge nodes.
SideSwap attributes peg-out details to Elements, not its system
One of the most specific parts of the incident response came from SideSwap, which said the withdrawal passed through its peg-out service as a customer order using its Peg-out Authorization Key (PAK). SideSwap emphasized that the PAK was not compromised.
The company’s statement further claims that the L-BTC used in the transaction originated from a bug in Elements—the open-source software that underpins Liquid—rather than from a compromise or failure within SideSwap’s systems.
That framing is significant because it shifts attention from custodian or peg-out authorization credentials toward the base protocol layer. If the vulnerability truly stems from Elements behavior, the remediation would likely require coordinated updates not only on the bridge or federation components, but also across the surrounding software stack that interfaces with Liquid nodes.
What to watch next for Liquid users and integrators
Until Liquid and Blockstream complete the patching and federation-wide node updates demanded in the messages, the bridge will remain paused and L-BTC flows are likely to stay constrained. Users should monitor further public updates from Liquid and Blockstream—especially any confirmation that the patched version is fully propagated across nodes and that exchanges resume deposits and withdrawals safely.
This article was originally published as Liquid Sidechain Halts After White Hats Withdraw $320M in BTC on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A reported “white hat” actor has taken nearly 4,000 Bitcoin worth about $319 million from the Liquid Network, according to an incident update posted by the Blockstream-run sidechain community. Liquid subsequently paused bridge operations and asked exchanges to stop both LBTC deposits and withdrawals while it investigates what went wrong.
Liquid Network says the withdrawal was executed via SideSwap using a Peg-out Authorization Key, while insisting that the key used was not compromised. Still, the federation wallet balance shown in Liquid’s explorer dropped sharply—from roughly 4,200 BTC to about 207.275 BTC—prompting renewed scrutiny of how Liquid’s peg security functions when something unusual bypasses expected controls.
Key takeaways
Liquid says bridge nodes were disabled temporarily, effectively pausing the Liquid sidechain until the issue is resolved.
The incident involved an LBTC peg-out executed through SideSwap, with Liquid stating the Peg-out Authorization Key was not compromised.
Liquid told exchanges to pause LBTC deposits and withdrawals while the team attempts to contact the actor and assess security gaps.
An OP_RETURN message claimed the funds were extracted by “whitehats,” but neither the claim nor the technical details are fully verified publicly.
Liquid freezes bridge activity after a major LBTC outflow
According to the initial reporting in Liquid Network’s incident communications, a “shade under 4000 Bitcoin” worth approximately $319 million was withdrawn from Liquid. Liquid Network also referenced an unverified on-chain message—via OP_RETURN—asserting responsibility and asking to be contacted “on chain.”
In response, Liquid disabled bridge nodes, stating this stops any new transactions from being submitted to the network. The operational consequence is straightforward: without bridge nodes, the sidechain’s peg mechanics can’t continue normally, which is exactly what traders and exchanges need when a suspected peg-out route may be functioning unexpectedly.
“Bridge nodes have been temporarily disabled, so no new transactions can be submitted to the network. Effectively, the Liquid sidechain is paused until this issue is resolved.”
How Liquid’s peg-out is supposed to work—and what the incident challenges
Under standard Liquid mechanics, LBTC is burned on the sidechain before Bitcoin is released on the main chain. The withdrawal flow depends on authorization rules that require a multisignature setup (Liquid describes this as 11-of-15 multisig functionaries) and a whitelist for approvals.
That structure is meant to prevent exactly the kind of unauthorized peg-out that would drain funds from the federation wallet. The incident therefore raises questions that go beyond the size of the withdrawal: it challenges whether the controls around approvals and whitelisting performed as intended, or whether there is an unexpected pathway in the way approvals are generated and executed.
Crypto analyst DBCrypto argued that the behavior appears more consistent with an extraction that leaves funds “sitting on Bitcoin” rather than being rapidly mixed, describing it as potentially closer to “whitehat extraction than theft.” At the same time, DBCrypto said the broader security implications remain serious: either the required signatures and authorization logic were effectively satisfied, or the whitelist/control mechanisms designed to block such events did not hold.
SideSwap role and Liquid’s assertion about key security
Liquid said the withdrawn funds were sent via Sideswap, specifically through the SideSwap PAK (Peg-out Authorization Key). In Liquid’s statement, the PAK used in the transaction was not compromised, and it claimed that no other related keys were compromised either.
Liquid also reported that it had already established how the LBTC involved in the order was created—through a bug in Elements software. While the incident details in the public account focus on the peg-out authorization process and the status of the key, the Elements reference matters because it suggests the failure may have started earlier than the final Bitcoin withdrawal itself.
For market participants, the key implication is practical: if an Elements-level bug can affect how LBTC is created or approved for peg-out, then the operational risk isn’t confined to a single malicious transaction. Instead, it may require a broader review of how sidechain issuance and peg-out eligibility interact, and how those conditions are validated before bridge processing is allowed to resume.
What to watch as Liquid and related operators investigate
Liquid and its ecosystem appear to be working through a familiar incident sequence: identify which steps deviated from expected behavior, confirm whether any authorization keys were actually compromised, and determine what fixes or compensating controls are necessary before restarting bridge functions.
At the time of the provided coverage, Blockstream and Adam Back had not posted public updates on the incident timeline, but Samson Mow (Jan3 CEO) said “everyone is actively working to resolve this.” The immediate items for users and exchanges are likely straightforward—follow Liquid’s instructions to pause LBTC deposits and withdrawals until the bridge is re-enabled and the underlying security question is addressed.
Until Liquid publishes more technical detail on the peg-out authorization flow, the nature of the Elements bug, and why the multisig/whitelist protections were insufficient (or circumvented), the central uncertainty will remain the same: whether this was a one-off exploitation path or a systemic weakness that could reappear in other peg operations. Readers should watch for the moment bridge nodes return and for any concrete post-mortem describing exactly which authorization or validation step failed.
This article was originally published as Hodler’s Digest: White-hat whale moves 4,000 BTC; spot ETFs top 2026 inflows on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

XRP climbed roughly 6% in a single trading session, pushing its price back above $1.45. The move followed dovish comments from Federal Reserve officials, and it lifted the broader crypto market with it. Traders now point to $10 as a long-term target for XRP, a figure that seemed unrealistic only weeks ago.
The rally stems from shifting expectations around Fed interest rate policy. Risk assets across markets caught a bid as traders priced in a friendlier rate path ahead. XRP’s 24-hour trading volume held near $4 billion, and its market cap settled around $90.9 billion.
That volume places XRP firmly among the largest cryptocurrencies by market presence. Rate-cut speculation has shifted throughout the week, and that uncertainty spilled directly into XRP price action. An August surge took XRP from $1 to $1.70, a 70% jump, and set the stage for the current rebound.
XRP Faces Key Resistance After Its August Correction
XRP corrected 20% after that August peak, sliding into a $1.35–$1.38 range. That zone has since become the support level bulls are defending. XRP now trades near $1.45, sitting comfortably above that band.
The 200-day exponential moving average sits close behind, between $1.33 and $1.35. That level offers bulls a cushion if selling pressure returns. Trading volume near $5.5 billion suggests real participation rather than a thin, short-lived spike.
Chart patterns still show a descending triangle stretching back to August’s $1.70 high. XRP is bouncing off triangle support, but it hasn’t broken through resistance yet. A hold above $1.34 would set up a retest of the $1.55 level next.
A clean break past resistance could open a path toward $1.60 to $1.90. Alternatively, XRP could consolidate between $1.38 and $1.52 while markets digest new data. A drop below $1.30 would risk a deeper pullback, especially around upcoming jobs figures.
Speculation about a potential XRP ETF continues to feed talk of a $10 price target. That timeline, however, remains unconfirmed and speculative for now. Institutional demand has reportedly grown beneath the surface, adding some support to bullish arguments.
Bitcoin Hyper Presale Draws Attention as XRP Holds Its Range
A 6% to 7% bounce benefits current XRP holders, but scaling further presents a steeper challenge. XRP’s $90 billion market cap means doubling in value requires substantial new capital. That kind of move typically unfolds over months, not days or weeks.
Smaller, early-stage tokens face a different math problem entirely. Bitcoin Hyper (HYPER) has emerged as one project drawing interest in that category. It positions itself as a Bitcoin Layer 2 network with full SVM integration built in.
The project aims for execution speeds faster than Solana while settling transactions back to Bitcoin’s base layer. Its presale has raised $33.1 million so far, with tokens priced at $0.0136857 each. Staking rewards during the presale period are advertised at over 60% annual percentage yield.
The project also highlights a decentralized bridge for moving Bitcoin across networks. Low-latency Layer 2 processing is designed to address Bitcoin’s limited programmability. As with any presale-stage project, these figures come from the project’s own promotional materials and remain unverified by independent audits.
This article was originally published as Xrp Rallies Past $1.45 As Fed Signals Fuel Broad Crypto Gains on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin rewards mined in March 2010—now moving after more than 16 years from long-dormant wallets—have triggered fresh debate over whether the earliest coins could be tied to Satoshi Nakamoto. On Saturday, multiple addresses that together held about 600 BTC (worth roughly $48 million) transferred funds after an inactivity stretch spanning well over a decade and a half, according to onchain data reviewed by Cointelegraph.
The latest movement is getting attention because it falls within the period when Nakamoto was still active in Bitcoin’s early development. But blockchain sleuthing by Whale Alert points to a different conclusion: the company says it found no link between these specific mining blocks and Nakamoto.
Key takeaways
About 600 BTC moved from dormant Bitcoin addresses after more than 16 years, with Cointelegraph tracing the activity to onchain monitoring reports.
Whale Alert attributes the funds to block rewards from March 2010, when the per-block subsidy was 50 BTC.
Whale Alert says its research cannot connect any of the 12 relevant mining blocks to Satoshi Nakamoto.
The same incident builds on Whale Alert’s earlier work that covered seven of the rewards, now expanded to all 12.
Lookonchain previously identified seven miner wallets tied to the March 2010 mining period, reinforcing the timeline.
Whale Alert expands its mapping of the March 2010 rewards
Whale Alert’s follow-up research, as reported to Cointelegraph, identifies all 12 reward events behind the dormant funds. The transfers originate from Bitcoin blocks mined in March 2010, when each mined block paid a 50 BTC subsidy. Over time, that subsidy has been reduced through Bitcoin’s scheduled halving process.
Most recently, the subsidy fell in April 2024, when Bitcoin’s block reward decreased from 6.25 BTC to the current 3.125 BTC per block, following Bitcoin’s 2024 halving. While that historical note doesn’t change the origin story of the dormant coins, it helps contextualize why coins mined in early 2010 were so much larger per block than today’s issuance.
Whale Alert previously analyzed only seven of the rewards and said in an X post that those blocks were not mined by Nakamoto. This latest work extends the company’s tracing to the full set of 12 reward blocks connected to Saturday’s wallet activity.
Where the “Satoshi” speculation comes from—and why Whale Alert disputes it
Speculation intensified because the moved coins are “Satoshi-era” rewards—mined while Nakamoto was still participating in Bitcoin communications and development. Nakamoto’s involvement didn’t end abruptly; the individual continued to be present in the project through 2010 and then gradually withdrew. Cointelegraph previously reported that the last known communication dates to April 2011.
However, Whale Alert argues that timing alone is not enough to claim a link to Nakamoto. A Whale Alert spokesperson told Cointelegraph that none of the blocks tied to the 12 rewards can be connected to Satoshi based on its research. In other words, although the coins are old enough to keep the mythic connection alive, Whale Alert’s mapping does not support the origin claim.
For traders and long-term holders, the practical takeaway is that “old coins” and “Satoshi-era” are not the same as “Satoshi coins.” The distinction matters because narratives about Nakamoto-linked holdings often feed into heightened speculation, even when the underlying evidence is absent or inconclusive.
Inactivity broke: test-transaction pattern and wallet behavior
Whale Alert also provided interpretive context for how the transfers unfolded. The company noted that one of the 12 reward payments moved several blocks before most of the others. Whale Alert suggested this sequencing resembles a test transaction—followed by later transfers from the remaining related addresses—rather than a single coordinated sweep.
That behavioral detail matters because it influences how observers read the motive behind dormant-wallet activity. A test transaction implies the sender may have been verifying rules or pathways before moving larger amounts, whereas a single immediate consolidation typically points to a different kind of operational intent. Without access to private keys or additional offchain context, onchain pattern analysis is the closest available lens.
Cointelegraph also notes that Lookonchain previously identified seven miner wallets that moved 350 BTC after about 16.5 years of inactivity, attributing those wallets to March 2010 mining. Taken together, the overlap in timing supports that the dormant activity is tied to the early mining subsidy period, even if the participants remain anonymous.
What to watch next as “early coins” come back online
These movements are a reminder that Bitcoin’s early distribution still occasionally reappears on public ledgers—sometimes after extraordinary inactivity. Even when those events are not linked to Nakamoto, they can still matter: large-value transfers from long-dormant addresses can shift sentiment around supply dynamics and may drive short-term speculation about whether more old holdings will move.
For now, the key uncertainty is whether additional related wallets—connected to other early mining outputs—will remain silent or follow this pattern. Investors and traders should watch for follow-on transactions from adjacent early-era addresses and for further onchain attribution work that either corroborates or refines the “which blocks were mined by whom” questions.
This article was originally published as Satoshi-Era Bitcoin Moves After 16 Years Dormant, 600 BTC Shift on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Coins mined in Bitcoin’s earliest era have finally stirred after more than 16 years of inactivity, prompting fresh speculation that they could be tied to Satoshi Nakamoto. According to on-chain analysis highlighted by Cointelegraph, 12 dormant Bitcoin addresses collectively moved 600 BTC on Saturday—an amount currently valued around $48 million.
While the timing has fueled “Satoshi-era” narratives, Whale Alert’s research claims it found no evidence linking the transactions to Nakamoto. The platform says the moved funds trace back to block rewards earned during March 2010, when Satoshi was still actively involved with the project’s early development and communications—before gradually stepping back.
Key takeaways
On-chain data reviewed by Cointelegraph shows 12 Bitcoin addresses moved a total of 600 BTC after more than 16 years of dormancy.
Whale Alert traced the 600 BTC to mining rewards paid across 12 Bitcoin blocks in March 2010, each originally issued as a 50 BTC subsidy.
Whale Alert says none of those blocks can be connected to Satoshi Nakamoto based on its analysis.
Prior work by Whale Alert covered only seven of the rewards, while Lookonchain had earlier identified seven miner wallets moving 350 BTC.
The fact that the coins were mined while Nakamoto was still involved is driving attention—but “same era” is not the same as “same owner.”
Early blocks, long dormancy, and a sudden wake-up
The renewed activity centers on a cluster of very old wallets that had not shown movement for over a decade and a half. Cointelegraph reports that 12 addresses collectively moved 600 BTC after more than 16 years. Whale Alert, a blockchain transaction tracking platform, said the amount originated from rewards mined across 12 distinct Bitcoin blocks.
For investors and on-chain observers, these kinds of “awakening” events matter because they can create a brief narrative spike: dormant supply can look like potential future sell pressure, even when no immediate market impact is confirmed. In this case, the key question is not just that the coins moved, but where they came from—and who may have controlled them.
Whale Alert told Cointelegraph that its research did not find a link between the mined blocks and Nakamoto. This point is important: speculation often increases when activity occurs during a period associated with Nakamoto’s involvement, but attribution claims require more than chronology.
Whale Alert expands its tracing from seven to twelve rewards
Whale Alert’s updated work reportedly traces all 12 block rewards to Bitcoin blocks mined in March 2010. At that time, the protocol paid a 50 BTC block subsidy per block. Since then, the subsidy has been reduced repeatedly through halvings; the most recent reduction referenced in the report came in April 2024, when the block subsidy fell from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC per block.
The analysis also builds on Whale Alert’s earlier effort. Cointelegraph notes that Whale Alert had previously examined seven of the rewards and said it identified those blocks as not mined by Nakamoto. In the updated accounting, Whale Alert now extends its tracing to cover the remaining five rewards as well.
Independent on-chain analytics had already surfaced part of the story. Cointelegraph says Lookonchain initially identified seven miner wallets that moved 350 BTC after 16.5 years of inactivity, attributing the funds to mining activity in March 2010. Taken together, the different layers of analysis underscore a consistent theme: these were mining rewards from early blocks—not some later token swap or unrelated transfer.
Why “Satoshi-era” is a tempting narrative—and a weak proof
The movement drew attention largely because March 2010 sits squarely in the period when Satoshi Nakamoto was still active in Bitcoin development and communications. Cointelegraph points to Nakamoto’s involvement continuing through 2010, with the last known communication dating to April 2011.
However, the editorial distinction here matters: “mined during the time Nakamoto was around” does not automatically mean “controlled by Nakamoto.” Whale Alert’s spokesperson emphasized that none of the blocks associated with the 12 rewards could be connected to Nakamoto based on its research.
Cointelegraph also reports a behavioral detail that further complicates simple attribution. Whale Alert said one of the rewards moved several blocks before most of the others, suggesting the early transfer pattern could align with a test transaction preceding the rest of the movements. In other words, even if multiple rewards originate from the same month and subsidy era, the way the coins were handled over time may reflect operational behavior rather than a single, easily identifiable owner.
What to watch next after these long-dormant transfers
When ancient Bitcoin moves, the immediate on-chain fact is clear—coins changed hands from addresses that had been silent for years. What remains uncertain is the economic intent behind the transfers: whether these movements represent consolidation, internal housekeeping, or preparations that could later involve liquidation.
For readers monitoring these developments, the most practical next step is to track where the 600 BTC ultimately flows after the initial movement, and whether any portion returns to new dormant addresses or heads toward exchanges. The “Satoshi” question may remain speculative without stronger evidence, but the real signal for market participants will be the downstream path of the coins and how quickly—if at all—the revived supply reaches liquidity.
This article was originally published as Satoshi-Era Bitcoin Reactivates After 16 Years as 600 BTC Moves on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Singapore-based Bitcoin mining company BitFuFu has increased its Bitcoin treasury to 1,373 BTC, highlighting a renewed focus on holding the digital asset even as the miner continues to navigate weaker mining economics and pressure on revenue.
The latest accumulation marks a notable shift from periods when the company sold part of its Bitcoin reserves to finance operations and expand mining capacity. BitFuFu’s recent financial performance has underscored the challenges facing miners as Bitcoin prices, network difficulty, and demand for cloud-mining services affect profitability.
Key Takeaways
BitFuFu’s Bitcoin treasury has reached 1,373 BTC.
The company previously used Bitcoin sales to support operations and procure additional mining capacity.
Second-quarter revenue fell 62.9% year over year to $42.8 million.
BitFuFu has been rebuilding its managed hashrate after significantly reducing capacity earlier in the year.
Bitcoin Treasury Takes Greater Importance
BitFuFu’s treasury strategy has evolved alongside its mining operations. In May 2025, the company held 1,709 BTC after selling 178 BTC during Bitcoin’s then-record price levels.
CEO Leo Lu said the sales were part of a broader effort to manage liquidity while maintaining the company’s long-term exposure to Bitcoin.
“With a more constructive Bitcoin market environment and a significantly expanded operating base, we are well positioned to capture improving market opportunities in the months ahead.”
This article was originally published as Singapore’s BitFuFu Accumulates More Bitcoin, Pushing Treasury Holdings to 1,373 BTC on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Orionx, a Chilean cryptocurrency exchange backed by Tether, is shutting down after discovering a custodial shortfall that Orionx says is tied to assets leaving wallets the exchange did not manage. The company said it has started a permanent closure process and is temporarily suspending withdrawals while it works to return funds to clients.
In a statement posted on X, Orionx said a forensic audit found that more than $7 million in custodial assets recorded in the exchange’s systems had moved to wallets not controlled by Orionx. “Our sole priority now is to return as much of our clients’ assets as possible,” the exchange said.
Key takeaways
Orionx began permanent closure after a forensic review identified a custody mismatch involving over $7 million.
Withdrawals are temporarily suspended as the exchange moves to return client assets.
The company did not disclose when the transfers occurred, but a criminal complaint referenced activity between 2018 and 2021.
Orionx accused former co-founders of alleged access to custody systems and denied wrongdoing by the accused parties.
Tether led Orionx’s Series A in June 2025, underscoring how quickly the fallout can arrive even after major investment.
A custody mismatch triggers a shutdown
Orionx’s announcement did not provide specifics on the timing of the discrepancy or how the issue was first uncovered. However, the exchange said it initiated a permanent closure process following forensic findings that compared Orionx’s internal records with onchain data linked to its custody addresses.
The external audit, according to reporting cited in a criminal complaint, concluded that balances maintained in Orionx’s systems exceeded the assets actually held at the custody addresses for several cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), XRP, and Polygon (POL). Orionx said these funds had been moved to wallets it did not manage.
For customers, the practical impact is immediate: withdrawals are currently paused while Orionx attempts to reconcile records and return what it can. The lack of disclosed timing in the company’s public post also leaves outside observers with an incomplete picture of when customers may have been most exposed to the custody gap.
What Orionx says it found, and what remains unclear
According to Orionx and related reporting, the exchange’s review started in the context of compliance efforts tied to Chile’s Fintech Law. Orionx reportedly carried out an internal operational review in 2025 and brought in financial professionals, as described by La Tercera, citing the company’s criminal complaint.
La Tercera reported that on Aug. 27 Orionx’s chief operating officer, Thomas Mac Millan, identified what the complaint describes as a “significant mismatch” between what Orionx’s systems recorded and what was actually held in custody. After that internal review, Orionx commissioned a forensic audit that compared operational records against data verifiable onchain.
The criminal complaint, as reported, alleges that assets were transferred out of Orionx’s custody between 2018 and 2021, including to accounts on other crypto platforms. Despite that window being referenced in the complaint, Orionx’s public closure announcement did not confirm when the discrepancy occurred or whether all of the alleged transfers align with the full value of the shortfall ultimately identified.
Criminal complaint against former co-founders
Orionx said it filed a criminal complaint on Wednesday against former executives Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz, both described as co-founders who allegedly had access to the custody systems. The company’s allegations center on transfers tied to wallets not controlled by Orionx.
La Tercera reported that the complaint alleges an account associated with Díaz received more than $1.5 million across 14 transfers. It also reported that another wallet allegedly received 187 Ether, more than 4.1 million USDt (USDT), and 200,000 USDC from Orionx.
Zibert and Díaz denied the accusations. According to La Cuarta, they said they never acted against customers’ interests and argued that the cause of the asset shortfall remains unclear. The denial adds a key uncertainty for clients and observers: even if custody mismatches are documented, disputes over responsibility and intent can complicate timelines for recovery and any eventual legal resolution.
Tether’s 2025 backing and the speed of disruption
Orionx was founded in Chile in 2017 and expanded from a retail crypto exchange into a broader platform offering crypto payment and financial services across Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico.
In June 2025, Tether led Orionx’s Series A funding round, described in a Tether announcement that is now available only via an archived link. The exchange’s Series A was positioned by Tether as part of an effort to expand digital-asset adoption in Latin America.
As of publication, Cointelegraph reported that it contacted both Tether and Orionx for comment but had not received a response.
The episode highlights a broader reality for investors and users: even where a major stablecoin issuer participates in funding, due diligence on operational custody processes must remain a continuous effort rather than a one-time milestone. Orionx’s shutdown, coming only about a year after the Series A, also raises questions about how custody controls evolve after an investment round and what auditing mechanisms—internal or external—are in place during periods of growth.
For clients, the next steps will likely hinge on how Orionx conducts reconciliations and whether it can identify recoverable assets tied to custody mismatches. Readers should watch for updates on the scope of the recovered funds, the timing of the alleged transfers, and how the criminal case progresses—especially given the accused parties’ claim that the root cause of the shortfall is not established.
This article was originally published as Tether-backed Orionx Plans Shutdown After $7M Custody Gap Found on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Orionx, a Chile-based cryptocurrency exchange backed by Tether, is shutting down after a forensic review flagged a multimillion-dollar custody discrepancy, according to statements shared by the company on X. The exchange said it is moving into a permanent closure process and has temporarily suspended withdrawals as it works to return client funds.
Orionx said the audit identified more than $7 million in assets recorded in its custodial records that had been transferred to wallets it does not manage. The announcement arrives against a broader backdrop of increased scrutiny around custody controls and regulatory compliance for crypto firms operating in Latin America.
Key takeaways
Orionx is initiating a permanent shutdown after a forensic audit found a custody mismatch involving more than $7 million.
The exchange says withdrawals are temporarily suspended while it prioritizes returning client assets.
Orionx has not disclosed when the transfers occurred, but a criminal complaint alleges outflows from custody between 2018 and 2021.
Former co-founders Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz deny allegations tied to unauthorized access to custody systems.
Tether led Orionx’s Series A in 2025 as part of an expansion push, with the funding announcement later removed from Tether’s website.
A forensic finding triggers a withdrawal pause
Orionx announced that it began the process of permanently closing the platform after uncovering what it described as evidence of a custody-related issue. In its X post, the exchange said withdrawals have been paused in the interim while it attempts to return as much as possible to clients.
At the center of Orionx’s case is the discrepancy identified between the balances shown in its systems and the assets it holds at its custody addresses. Orionx attributed the issue to more than $7 million in custodial assets having moved to wallets the exchange does not manage, according to the company announcement.
While Orionx said it commissioned a forensic audit that compared internal records with verifiable on-chain data, the exchange did not specify in its post when the transfers took place or how the mismatch was first detected. That timing detail is important for investors and users trying to understand exposure windows, but the available reporting points to a longer period of alleged activity.
Timeline and alleged custody gaps cited in a Chilean complaint
According to reporting by Chilean newspaper La Tercera, Orionx undertook internal efforts to comply with Chile’s Fintech Law, conducting a review of its operations in 2025 and bringing in financial professionals. The publication tied Orionx’s actions to a criminal complaint involving former executives.
Reportedly, on Aug. 27, Orionx’s chief operating officer Thomas Mac Millan noticed a “significant mismatch” between the balances recorded in Orionx’s systems and what was actually held in custody, as described in the complaint. Orionx then ran an internal review and later commissioned an external forensic audit that matched its records with data that can be checked on-chain.
The forensic audit findings, as described through the complaint and reported by La Tercera, indicate that balances tracked within Orionx’s systems were higher than the assets held at its custody addresses for Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), XRP, and Polygon (POL). That kind of gap can be especially consequential for users because it suggests the platform’s accounting and custody reality did not align across multiple major assets.
La Tercera further reports that the complaint alleges assets were transferred out of Orionx’s custody between 2018 and 2021, including to accounts hosted on other crypto platforms. Although the exchange’s public announcement did not spell out the period, the complaint points to a multi-year span, which could influence how authorities and affected customers evaluate responsibility and timing.
Criminal complaint targets former co-founders; denials follow
Orionx said it filed a criminal complaint on Wednesday against former executives Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz—both co-founders—whom it alleges had access to the company’s crypto custody systems. In the complaint as reported by La Tercera, an account associated with Díaz allegedly received more than $1.5 million across 14 transfers. The report also cites allegations that another wallet received 187 Ether, more than 4.1 million USDt (USDT), and 200,000 USDC from Orionx.
Zibert and Díaz denied wrongdoing, according to La Cuarta. They said they never acted against customers’ interests and argued that the cause of Orionx’s asset shortfall remains unclear.
For Orionx customers, the competing narratives—Orionx’s custody-mismatch claims versus the co-founders’ denials—are likely to shape what happens next. But the practical impact is immediate: Orionx is prioritizing asset recovery efforts while keeping withdrawals suspended, meaning users cannot rely on normal exchange liquidity during the shutdown process.
Tether’s 2025 backing and the question of what changed
Orionx was founded in Chile in 2017 and expanded from a retail crypto exchange into a broader platform that offered crypto payment and financial services across Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico.
In June 2025, Tether invested in Orionx, exclusively leading Orionx’s Series A round, according to an archived version of Tether’s announcement. That announcement is no longer available on Tether’s website, but the archived copy attributes the investment to Tether’s stated aim of expanding digital-asset adoption across Latin America.
Cointelegraph reported that it contacted Tether and Orionx for comment but had not received a response by publication. The episode raises an investor question that often comes up in crypto custody failures: even when an exchange secures prominent strategic backing, custody controls and operational integrity still require continuous verification, particularly as regulatory expectations rise.
What remains uncertain is how the alleged custody shortfall ties to Orionx’s later operations and compliance efforts. The complaint reporting points to transfers between 2018 and 2021, while Orionx’s public review and forensic steps occurred later. Until more details emerge from the criminal process and the ongoing closure and restitution efforts, the exact mechanics of the gap—along with the responsibility chain—may remain disputed.
Over the coming weeks, clients and observers will likely watch for updates on whether Orionx can identify and recover missing assets from the wallets it says it does not control, as well as what authorities uncover regarding access, internal controls, and the alleged timeline of transfers.
This article was originally published as Tether-Backed Orionx to Shut Down After $7M Custody Gap Found on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Fidelity Digital Assets has cautioned that Bitcoin’s strong August performance does not necessarily mean the cryptocurrency’s broader bear market has ended. While the latest rally has improved market conditions, the firm said investors should still consider the possibility of another market bottom later this year.
Bitcoin posted its strongest monthly gain since late 2024 during August, while Ethereum and other major cryptocurrencies also recorded substantial advances. The move has led some investors to argue that the market may have already established a bottom.
Key Takeaways
Fidelity said Bitcoin’s bear market may not be over despite its strong August recovery.
The four-year cycle model places potential attention on November 2026, although Fidelity stressed that the pattern is not a reliable timing tool.
Bitcoin gained more than 25% during the third week of August, while Ethereum and Solana rose 34.1% and 28%, respectively.
Growing stablecoin activity, real-world asset adoption, institutional participation, and regulatory developments could support a broader recovery.
Four-Year Cycle Keeps November in Focus
Fidelity’s latest digital asset outlook points to Bitcoin’s historical market cycles as one reason investors remain cautious.
Bitcoin’s previous major bear market bottom occurred in November 2022. If the roughly four-year pattern were to repeat, another potential bottom could emerge around November 2026.
However, Fidelity emphasized that investors should not treat the cycle as a precise forecasting model. Bitcoin’s historical cycles have not consistently lasted exactly four years, meaning the market could have already bottomed in July or could experience another decline later in the year.
Chris Kuiper, vice president of research at Fidelity Digital Assets, said the broader significance of the cycle may be connected to how cryptocurrency adoption develops.
“The more important point for investors is that adoption of digital assets has happened in waves, which can perpetuate cycles. In light of this, having a long-term perspective and holding period is what has historically been the most beneficial for investors.” He noted.
August Rally Provides Evidence of a Possible Shift
Fidelity also identified several developments that could support the argument that the market is moving away from its bearish phase.
Bitcoin spent much of the third quarter in relatively subdued trading before volatility increased sharply in late August. During the third week alone, Bitcoin rose more than 25%, while Ethereum gained 34.1% and Solana advanced 28%.
According to Fidelity, previous Bitcoin bear markets have sometimes ended after a period of subdued volatility followed by a sharp expansion in price activity.
Kuiper said the period from June through mid-August showed signs that selling pressure had weakened and that several digital assets were trading toward the lower end of their historical valuation ranges.
The subsequent price expansion therefore represents one factor that could indicate the market is approaching a turning point. Fidelity, however, stopped short of treating the rally as confirmation of a new bull market.
Esewhere, crypto analyst Darkfost described Bitcoin as being at a “tipping point between a genuine bullish recovery and a continuation of the correction.”
According to the analyst, futures activity is currently helping drive market movements while spot demand has declined. Darkfost said speculation can produce short-term price movements, but sustained momentum would require stronger spot buying to develop alongside derivatives activity.
“The balance remains and still leans towards buyers. But the question is, what type of buyers are driving the market? Speculation can trigger movement, but for momentum to become sustainable, spot demand must synchronize,” the analyst noted.
This chart perfectly illustrates the divergence currently at play on BTC today.
We’re paying closer attention to it because everyone knows Bitcoin is now sitting at the tipping point between a genuine bullish recovery and a continuation of the correction.
Right now, it’s… pic.twitter.com/SQUiQd6MGT
— Darkfost (@Darkfost_Coc) September 3, 2026
Regulation and Institutional Demand Remain Important
Fidelity identified regulatory progress, institutional adoption, monetary policy, and new cryptocurrency use cases as potential factors that could influence the next phase of the market.
In the United States, attention remains focused on the CLARITY Act, which seeks to establish clearer regulatory responsibilities for digital assets. The legislation has passed the House and remains under consideration in the Senate.
The SEC has also proposed a new regulatory framework that could provide exemptions from securities registration requirements for certain early-stage crypto asset offerings. The proposal remains subject to public comment.
What to Watch Next
Bitcoin’s August recovery has improved the market’s outlook, but Fidelity’s assessment suggests that investors should not assume the bear market is definitively over.
The next phase will depend on whether higher prices are supported by sustained adoption, institutional participation, and spot market demand rather than short-term volatility alone.
For now, November remains a date watched by investors following the four-year cycle thesis, while Fidelity continues to stress that historical patterns should not be used as a precise method for timing Bitcoin’s market bottom.
This article was originally published as Fidelity Warns Bitcoin’s Bear Market May Not Be Over Despite August Rall on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Chainlink’s LINK token has climbed nearly 50% over the past month, with the latest rally pushing its price above $12 as partnerships with financial institutions and U.S. government entities strengthens the market’s focus on the network’s role in traditional finance.
LINK gained about 8% in 24 hours on September 4, bringing its market capitalization to roughly $9 billion and placing it among the largest crypto assets by market value. The move has coincided with a broader crypto recovery but has also been supported by several developments involving Chainlink’s infrastructure.
Key Takeaways
LINK has gained nearly 50% in one month and recently moved above $12.
Chainlink partnered with Bottomline, which serves more than 600 banks and processes over $16 trillion in annual payments.
The U.S. Department of Commerce is using Chainlink infrastructure to bring selected economic data onchain.
Wyoming has expanded its use of Chainlink for its state-issued stablecoin, while Standard Chartered sees LINK reaching $200 by 2030.
Chainlink Expands Its Connection To Banking Infrastructure
On September 3, when Chainlink announced a strategic partnership with Bottomline, a major provider of payment technology used by hundreds of banks, the news added momentum.
Bottomline’s platforms reportedly process more than $16 trillion in payments each year and serve over 600 banks.
Through the agreement, Chainlink will provide an interoperability layer designed to connect existing payment systems with both public and private blockchains.
Notably, the integration is intended to allow financial institutions to use ISO 20022 messages to interact with blockchain-based payment infrastructure without having to build separate connections for individual networks.
The development adds to Chainlink’s growing involvement in financial infrastructure as banks and other institutions explore blockchain-based settlement and tokenized assets.
“Bottomline moves more than $16 trillion in payments annually across its platforms. Through the partnership, Chainlink is providing the secure interop and orchestration layer connecting Bottomline’s existing payment infrastructure to public and private blockchains.” Chainlink tweeted.
NEW: Top-three Swift service provider, Bottomline, has entered a strategic partnership with Chainlink to unlock cross-chain, cross-border payments for its 600+ bank customers.
Bottomline moves more than $16 trillion in payments annually across its platforms.
Through the… pic.twitter.com/jnpgCdoSCs
— Chainlink (@chainlink) September 3, 2026
U.S. Government Data Moves Toward The Blockchain
Chainlink has also gained exposure to a U.S. government initiative. On September 1, the project announced that the Department of Commerce would use its infrastructure to make selected economic data available onchain.
The data includes real gross domestic product, the personal consumption expenditures price index and actual final sales to domestic private domestic buyers.
The initiative could allow blockchain applications connected to Chainlink’s infrastructure to access updated government economic data, creating another potential use case for decentralized data delivery.
The U.S. Department of Commerce is leveraging Chainlink to bring key government macroeconomic data onchain:
• Real GDP
• PCE Price Index
• Real Final Sales to Private Domestic Purchasers
Chainlink @CommerceGov pic.twitter.com/rxxNdGmeoA
— Chainlink (@chainlink) September 1, 2026
Wyoming Deepens Chainlink Stablecoin Integration
Moreover, Wyoming has also
This article was originally published as Link Nears 50% Monthly Gain After Major Banking And Government Deals on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.